LIBRARY 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

SANTA  BARBARA 

PRESENTED  BY 
MRS.   MACKINLEY   HELM 


THE 


FOREIGN  BIBLICAL  LIBRARY. 


EDITED  BY  THE 

REV.  W.   ROBERTSON   NICOLL,  M.A., 

Editor  eftJu  "Expositor." 


WEISS'    MANUAL    OF  INTRODUCTION    TO 
THE  NEW    TESTAMENT. 


NEW  YORK: 

FUNK    &    WAGNALLS, 
ASTOR  PLACE. 


A 

MANUAL  OF  INTRODUCTION 

TO  THE 

NEW   TESTAMENT. 


BY 

DR.  BERNHARD  WEISS, 

Obtr-KoHsistorialrath  and  Professor  of  Thcdogy, 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  GERMAN  BY 
A.  J.   K.   DAVIDSON. 


IN  TWO  VOLUMES.     VOL.  I. 


NEW  YORK: 

FUNK    &    WAGNALLS, 
ASTOR  PLACE. 

(All  Rights  Reserved.) 


PREFACE. 


IT  is  almost  necessary  for  me  to  apologize  for  putting  forth 
an  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament  without  being  in  a 
position  to  offer  the  results  of  recent,  not  to  say  the  most 
recent,  researches.  Even  the  history  of  the  Canon,  which  I 
hope  I  have  advanced  a  step  beyond  the  current  combin- 
ation and  critical  explanation  of  isolated  facts,  contains  only 
the  expansion  of  fundamental  thoughts  to  which  I  have 
already  given  expression  in  a  review  of  Credner's  "  History 
of  the  Canon  "  (Theol  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1863, 1) .  But  the  special 
Introduction  touches  on  few  problems,  apart  perhaps  from 
the  sections  on  the  Corinthian  and  Johannine  Epistles  and 
the  Acts,  on  which  I  have  not  already  had  occasion  to  ex- 
press my  opinion,  discussing  them  minutely  in  some  cases, 
and  in  many  cases  more  than  once.  And  although  I  am  con- 
scious of  having  learnt  on  all  points,  even  from  opponents, 
and  of  having  in  many  respects  advanced  my  conceptions, 
yet  their  basis  has  been  preserved  throughout.  Nor  is  it 
the  design  of  this  book  to  assail  with  a  renewed  appeal  for 
their  assent,  those  who  have  hitherto  been  unable  to  accept 
the  same  fundamental  views,  much  less  those  who  have 
rejected  them  with  vehemence,  though  without  close  exami- 
nation, although  I  believe  there  is  much  that  finds  more 
favourable  elucidation  and  more  convincing  proof  from 
the  unbroken  connection  of  a  general  historical  and  critical 
survey  in  which  it  is  here  seen.  My  main  object  in  this 
instance  was  not  to  give  a  statement  of  my  views,  but  to 


VI  PREFACE. 

furnish  a  manual  with  the  best  methodical  arrangement,  the 
want  of  which  I  had  long  felt  in  my  academical  office. 

Repeated  attempts  have  indeed  been  made  to  satisfy  this 
want,  more  especially  of  late ;  but  these  attempts  fall  too 
far  short  of  the  ideal  I  had  hitherto  formed  of  such  a 
manual.  In  my  view,  the  main  thing  in  an  Introduction  to 
the  New  Testament  is  neither  criticism  nor  apologetics,  but 
the  actual  initiation  into  a  living,  historical  knowledge  of 
Scripture.  In  fact,  all  that  I  have  hitherto  published  in 
the  department  of  theology  has  only  had  this  one  aim,  since 
it  appears  to  me  that  nothing  less  than  the  whole  future  of 
theology  and  the  Church  depends  on  the  wider  diffusion  and 
deeper  character  of  such  an  understanding  of  the  Scriptures. 
But  I  find  this  knowledge  of  Scripture  endangered  not  only 
on  the  side  of  dogma,  and  by  the  unfortunate  virtuosoship 
that  makes  the  word  of  Scripture  the  sport  of  individual 
combinations  of  ideas  or  of  brilliant  rhetoric,  but  also  on  the 
side  of  criticism,  where  in  the  attempts  to  point  out  the 
historical  influences  of  the  time  or  the  strife  of  dogmatic 
tendencies  in  the  New  Testament  Scriptures,  their  religions 
character  has  only  too  often  been  utterly  misapprehended. 
For  this  reason  I  have  entered  more  minutely  than  is  usual 
into  an  analysis  of  the  train  of  thought  of  each  particular 
writing,  into  the  question  of  its  religious  and  literary  pecu- 
liarity, its  composition  as  well  as  its  historical  premises  and 
aims. 

In  so  doing  it  is  obvious  that  I  could  only  set  out  with 
the  views  I  had  matured  in  the  course  of  long  familiarity 
with  the  New  Testament,  even  where  these  have  hitherto 
met  with  more  opposition  than  assent.  I  am  incapable 
the  self-denial  necessarily  involved  in  making  myself  a 
mouth-piece  for  different  views,  a  self-denial  which  is  in 
many  cases  only  apparent,  betraying  by  incidental  hints  the 
contempt  with  which  it  looks  down  on  all  that  does  not  fit 
into  its  own  pattern.  Nor  do  I  hold  it  advisable  merely  to  set 


PEE  FACE.  Vll 

antagonistic  opinions  before  him  who  desires  to  be  instructed 
in  such  matters,  without  even  attempting  to  show  him  a 
way  in  which  to  reconcile  them.  I  believe  that  my  opinions, 
the  result  of  frequent  and  thorough  examination,  have  at 
least  the  same  claim  to  acceptance  as  those  of  my  predeces- 
sors. I  am  conscious  of  having  arrived  at  them,  not  in  obe- 
dience to  a  preconceived  theological  view,  but  by  impartial 
enquiry,  and  I  maintain  that  they  are  just  as  much  based  on 
a  general  historical  survey  of  the  relations  of  the  apostolic 
period,  as  the  criticism  that  is  so  prone  to  claim  for  itself 
exclusively,  the  name  historical. 

On  the  other  hand  I  have  entire  respect  for  all  earnest 
scientific  enquiry,  even  when  it  takes  another  direction  than 
what  appears  to  me  correct ;  and  I  am  not  satisfied  with  a 
peremptory  rejection  of  its  results.  I  have  endeavoured 
throughout  to  follow  the  history  of  scientific  research  as 
closely  as  possible  into  each  separate  question,  and  to  present 
it  to  the  reader.  I  have  also  allowed  a  hearing  to  the 
opposite  view,  with  its  reasons,  and  have  endeavoured  from 
history  itself  to  learn  and  to  teach  how  it  may  be  refuted, 
though  in  every  instance  I  look  for  the  chief  decision  from 
the  positive  statement  of  the  case  agreeably  to  the  sources 
from  which  it  is  drawn.  The  dependence  on  traditional 
premises,  which  is  as  great  on  the  critical  as  on  the  apolo- 
getic side,  I  have  now  as  ever  fearlessly  resisted,  even  where 
it  is  most  confidently  asserted.  I  do  not  profess  to  have 
enumerated  all  views,  or  mentioned  all  the  names  inciden- 
tally in  favour  of  this  or  that  opinion,  even  where  such 
names  may  be  renowned.  Of  actual  fellow-workers  on  the 
problems  of  the  New  Testament  I  hope  I  have  forgotten 
none.  But  I  have  not  been  able  to  follow  up  foreign  liter- 
ature to  any  extent. 

Holtzmann  in  his  Introduction  says,  Christianity  has  been 
"book-religion"  from  the  beginning.  In  answer  to  this,  I 
can  only  say,  God  be  praised  that  it  is  not  so.  The  opposi 


viii  PREFACE. 

tion  of  my  conception  of  the  New  Testament  to  that  of  many 
modern  critical  tendencies,  is  perhaps  most  sharply  concen- 
trated in  this  antithesis.  Christianity  has  from  the  begin- 
ning been  Life;  and  because  this  life  pulsates  in  its  primitive 
documents,  these  cannot  be  explained  or  understood  on  the 
hypothesis  of  "  literary  dependences."  I  do  not  pretend  to 
have  entirely  comprised  within  the  limits  of  my  Introduc- 
tion this  life,  the  fuller  and  deeper  grasp  of  which  is  the 
aim  of  all  theological  science,  or  to  have  given  it  compre- 
hensive expression,  but  I  have  honestly  striven  to  do  so. 
To  the  theologians  who  have  been  my  hearers  for  more 
than  thirty-four  years,  as  well  as  those  who  in  still  greater 
numbers  have  received  my  former  works  on  the  New  Testa- 
ment with  perfect  trust,  and  to  whom  they  have  been  a 
source  of  instruction,  I  offer  this  book  also,  as  an  intro- 
duction to  the  rich  treasury  of  our  New  Testament  records. 
I  am  aware  that  no  scientific  labour  can  unlock  its  deepest 
secret  or  lay  it  open  to  the  understanding.  But  I  know 
too,  that  without  such  labour  the  theologian  is  not  well 
equipped  for  the  preaching  of  the  word  and  the  battle  of 
the  present  that  is  imposed  as  a  duty  on  us  all.  May  this 
book,  under  God's  blessing,  contribute  to  that  end. 

BERLIN,  August,  1886.  B.  WEISS. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  TO  VOL.  I. 


INTRODUCTION. 

HOB 

§  1.    FOUNDING  OP  THE  SCIENCE  OF  INTBODOCTION  ...»        1 

1.  The  Patristic  time. 

2.  The  Middle  Ages  and  the  Reformation. 

3.  Eichard  Simon. 

4.  Joh.  Dav.  Michaelis. 

§  2.    CRITICISM  AND  APOLOGETICS    .......        7 

1.  Semler.    Haenlein.    Schmidt. 

2.  Eichhorn.    Bertholdt.    Hug. 

3.  Schleiermacher.    De  Wette.     Credner. 

4.  Guericke.     Olshausen.    Neander. 

§  3.    THE  TUBINGEN  SCHOOL  AND  ITS  OPPONENTS  ....      12 

1.  Ferdinand  Christian  v.  Baur. 

2.  Zeller.     Schwegler.    Bruno  Bauer. 
&  Thiersch.    Ebrard.    Lechler. 

4.  Bleek.    Ewald.    Beuss.    Ritschl. 

§  4.    PRESENT  STATE  OF  THE  SCIENCE     ......      18 

1.  Hilgenfeld.    Holsten.     Volkmar. 

2.  The  Modern  Critical  School. 

3.  Apologetic  Tendencies. 

4.  Problem  and  Method  of  the  Science  of  Introduction. 

FIRST  PART. 
HISTOK?  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 


§  6.    THE  CANON  OF  THE  LORD'S  WOBDS        . 

1.  Christ  and  the  Apostles. 

2.  Origin  of  a  New  Testament  Literature. 


X  CONTENTS. 

•Mi 

3.  The  Old  Testament  and  the  Lord's  Words. 

4.  The  Canon  of  the  Lord's  Words. 

6.  Oral  Tradition  as  the  Source  of  the  Lord's  Words. 

6.  Oldest  Traces  of  the  Written  Gospels. 

7.  The  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  Epistlea  of  John  in  the 

Apostolic  Fathers. 

§  6.    THE  OLDEST  TRACES  or  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES       .      43 

1.  Mention  of  the  New  Testament  Epistles  in  the  Apostolic 

Fathers. 

2.  Apostolic  Authority  in  the  Apostolic  Fathers. 

3.  Traces  of  tho  New  Testament  Epistles  in  Clement. 

4.  Barnabas  and  Hennas. 

5.  Ignatius  and  Polycarp. 

6.  The  Clementine  Homilies  and  the  Didach6. 

7.  Spread  of  the  New  Testament  Epistles. 

§  7.    THE  GOSPEL  CANON £4 

1.  The  Memorabilia  of  the  Apostles  iu  Justin. 

2.  The  Use  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  in  Justin. 

8.  The  Fourth  Gospel  in  Justin. 

4.  The  Apostolic  Writings  in  Justin. 
6.  The  Fourth  Gospel  in  the  Apologists. 

6.  Tatian's  Diatessaron.    The  Origin  of  the  Gospel  Canon. 

7.  The  New  Testament  Epistles  in  the  Apologists. 

§  8.    THE  CANON  or  APOSTOLIC  TRADITIONAL  DOCTRINE.        .        .      73 

1.  The  Oral  Apostolic  Traditional  Doctrine. 

2.  The  Secret  Tradition  of  the  Heretics. 

8.  Going  hack  of  the  Heretics  to  the  Apostolic  Writings. 

4.  The  Falsification  of  Scripture  by  Heretics. 

5.  The  Scripture  Criticism  of  Heretics. 

6.  The  Canon  of  Marcion. 

7.  The  liaising  of  the  Apostolic  Writings  to  the  Bank  of 

Sacred  Writings. 

§  9.    THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  AT  THE  CLOSE  or  THE  SKCOND  CEN- 
TURY         87 

1.  The  New  Testament  and  its  Parts. 

2.  The  Gospels. 

3.  The  Acts. 

4.  5.  The  Apostolic  Epistles. 

6.  The  Apocalypse. 

7.  The  New  Testament  at  the  End  of  the  Second  Centurv. 


CONTENTS.  XI 

PAGB 

§  10.    THB  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  FORMATION  OF  THB  NEW  TESTA- 
MENT CANON •       •       .       •    102 

1.  The  Bible  of  the  Syrian  Church. 

2,  3.  The  Muratorian  Fragment, 

4.  The  West  in  the  Third  Century. 

5.  Fundamental  Principles  of  Canon  Formation  in  Origen. 

6.  7.  Their  Application  to  the  New  Testament  Writings. 

§  11.    THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  CANON  IN  THE  EAST      ....    119 

1.  The  Time  after  Origen. 

2.  The  Division  of  the  New  Testament  Writings  in  Eusebius. 

3.  The  Homologumena  in  Eusebius. 

4.  The  Antilegomena  in  Eusebius. 

6.  Lists  of  the  Canon  in  the  Fourth  Century. 

6.  The  Canonical  Books  of  the  New  Testament. 

7.  Virtual  Close  of  the  Canon  in  the  East. 

§  12.    THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  CANON  IN  THE  WEST     ....     135 

1.  Philastrius  of  Brescia. 

2.  Bufinus  and  Jerome. 

3.  Augustine. 

4.  The  Canon  and  the  Bomish  See. 

5.  The  Middle  Ages  and  the  Council  of  Trent. 

6.  The  Eeformers  and  the  Evangelical  Church. 

7.  Criticism  of  the  Canon. 


SECOND  PART. 

HISTOET  OF  THE  OEIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
WEITINGS. 

FIEST  DIVISION.    THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 

13.    THE  APOSTLE  PAUL 149 

1.  Saul's  Descent  and  Youth. 

2.  His  Conversion. 

8.  The  Beginnings  of  his  Missionary  Activity. 

4.  His  First  Missionary  Journey. 

5.  The  Development  of  his  Apostolic  Consciousness. 

6.  The  Development  of  his  Gentile-Apostolic  Consciousness. 

7.  The  Name  Paul. 


Xll  CONTENTS. 

•MH 

S  14.     PAUL  AMD  THE  PRIMITIVE  APOSTLKS 166 

1.  The  Standpoint  of  the  Primitive  Apostles. 

2.  The  Missionary  Activity  of  the  Primitive  Apostles. 

3.  The  Occasion  of  the  Apostolic  Council. 

4.  The  Liberation  of  the  Gentile  Christians  from  the  Law, 

and  the  Apostolic  Decree. 

5.  The  Agreement  Respecting  the  Missionary  Field. 

6.  The  Occurrence  at  Antioch. 

7.  The  Primitive  Apostles  and  Paul. 

$  15.    PAUL  AS  A  FOUNDER  or  CHURCHES        .        .       •       •        •    185 

1.  Paul  in  Lycaonia.    Timothy. 

2.  The  Founding  of  the  Galatian  Churches. 

8.  The  Church  at  Philippi. 

4.  The  Church  at  Thessalonica. 

5.  Paul  in  Beroea  and  Athens. 

6.  The  Church  at  Corinth. 

7.  The  Return  of  the  Apostle. 

9  16.    PAUL  AS  AM  AUTHOR 201 

1.  The  External  Attestation  of  the  Pauline  Epistles. 

2.  Lost  and  Supposititious  Pauline  Epibtles. 

3.  The  Primitive  Scriptures  and  their  Preservation. 

4.  The  Epistolary  Form. 

5.  Literary  Characteristics. 

6.  Doctrinal  Characteristics. 

7.  The  Language  of  the  Apostles. 

{ 17.    THE  THKSBALONIAN  EPISTLES       .        .       .        .       .       .218 

1.  The  Situation  of  the  First  Thessalonian  Epistle. 

2.  Analysis  of  the  Epistle. 

8.  Criticism  of  the  Epistle. 

4.  The  Second  Thessalonian  Epistle. 

5.  The  Criticism  of  the  Epistle. 

6.  The  Misinterpretations  of  2  Thess.  ii. 

7.  The  Apocalyptic  Combination  of  Paul. 

§  18.    THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  OALATIAMS  ...•«.    234 

1.  The  Second  Visit  of  Paul  to  Galatia. 

2.  The  Seduction  of  the  Galatian  Churches. 

8.  The  Historical  Situation  of  the  Galatian  Epistle. 
4-6.  Analysis  of  the  Galatian  Epistle. 

7.  Paul  in  Ephesus. 


CONTENTS.  Xlll 

PAGB 

§  19.    THE  CORINTHIAN  DISORDERS 251 

1.  The  Visit  to  Corinth  and  the  Lost  Epistle  to  that  place. 

2.  State  of  the  Church  at  Corinth. 

3.  Church  Meetings  and  Church  Order. 

4.  The  Corinthian  Parties. 

5.  Hypothesis  respecting  the  so-called  Christ  Party. 

6.  The  Christ  Disciples  in  Corinth. 

7.  The  Sending  of  Timothy  to  Corinth. 

§  20.    THE  FIEST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS    ....    267 

1.  The  Embassy  from  Corinth. 
2-6.  Analysis  of  the  First  Corinthian  Epistle. 
7.  Paul  in  Troas  and  Macedonia  (the  Hypothesis  of  a  Lost 
Intermediate  Letter). 

§  21.    THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS  ....    282 

1.  Accounts  of  Titus  from  Corinth. 

2.  Occasion  of  the  Second  Corinthian  Epistle. 
3-6.  Analysis  of  the  Second  Coriuthian  Epistle. 
7.  Paul  in  Corinth. 

§  22.    THE  CHURCH  AT  BOMB .    293 

1.  The  Historical  Situation  of  the  Roman  Epistle. 

2.  The  Beginnings  of  the  Roman  Church. 

3.  The  National  Character  of  the  Headers  of  the  Roma 

Epistle. 

4.  The  Polemic  View  of  the  Epistle. 

5.  The  Conciliatory  View. 

6.  The  Prophylactic  View. 

7.  Object  of  the  Roman  Epistle. 

§  23.    THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 808 

1-5.  Analysis  of  the  Doctrinal  Part  of  the  Roman  Epistle 
(Chaps,  i.-xi.). 

6.  Analysis  of  the  Hortatory  Part  ( Relation  of  Chaps,  xii. 

xiii.  to  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter.    The  Ascetic  Direc- 
tion of  xiv.  1-xv.  13). 

7.  Analysis  of  the  Close  of  the  Epistle  (Genuineness  of 

Chaps,  xv.,  xvi.    The  Letter  of  Commendation  to  Phcebe 
for  Ephesus.  Genuineness  of  the  concluding  Doxology). 


xiv 


S  24.    THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  COLOSSUNS  ......    3'-'-* 

1.  The  Apostle's  Journey  to  Jerusalem  and  Imprisonment 

there. 

2.  The  Captivity  of  the  Apostle  in  Caesarea  (Epistles  written 

there).    Accounts  from  Phrygia. 

3.  The  Theosophic  Ascetic  Tendency  in  Phrygia. 

4.  The  Development  of  Paulinism  in  the  Epistles  of  the 

Captivity. 

5.  Analysis  of  the  Colossian  Epistle. 

6.  Criticism  of  the  Colossian  Epistle. 

7.  The  Epistle  to  Philemon. 

§  25.    THE  EPISTLE  10  THE  EPHESIANS  ......    839 

1.  The  Original  Destination  of  the  Ephesian  Epistle. 

2.  Analysis  of  the  Epistle. 

3.  Its  Relation  to  the  Colossian  Epistle. 

4.  5.  Criticism  of  the  Ephesian  Epistle. 

6.  Object  of  the  Epistle  (Relation  to  the  First  Epistle  of 

Peter). 

7.  The  Voyage  to  Rome. 

§  26.    THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIFPIANS        .....    858 

1.  The  Roman  Capt:vity  of  the  Apostle  and  its  Results. 

2.  Occasion  and  Object  of  the  Philippian  Epistle. 

3.  Analysis  of  the  Philippian  Epistle. 

4.  5.  The  Criticism  of  the  Philippian  Epistle. 

6.  Historical  Testimony  respecting  Paul's  End. 

7.  His  Liberation  from  the  Roman  Captivity. 

8  27.    THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES       .......    871 

1.  Analysis  of  the  Fiiot  Epistle  to  Timothy. 

2.  Determination  of  the  Date  of  the  Epistle. 

3.  Analysis  of  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy. 

4.  Determination  of  the  Date  of  the  Epistle. 

5.  Situation  and  Contents  of  the  Epistle  to  Titus. 

6.  Determination  of  the  Date  of  the  Epistle. 

7.  The  Composition  of  the  Three  Epistles  after  the  Apostle's 

Liberation. 

i  28.  THE  PECDLIARIIIKS  or  THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES     .        .        .    890 

1.  The  Doctrinal  Errors  Combated  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles. 

2.  Historical  Determination  of  the  Same. 

8.  The  Doctrinal  Method  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles. 


CONTENTS.  XV 


4.  The  Mode  in  which  they  are  Written. 

5.  Church  Order  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles. 

6.  Beginnings  of  the  Office  of  Teacher  (Apostolic  Helps.  The 

Ordination  of  Timothy). 

7.  Worship  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles. 

29.    THE  CBITICISM  OP  THE  PASTOBAL  EPISXLES  ....    4.09 

1.  Schleiermacher.    Eichhorn.    De  Wette. 

2.  The  Older  Criticism  Untenable. 

3.  The  Modern  Criticism  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles. 

4.  The  Alleged  Object  of    their    Supposititious  Character 

Untenable. 
6.  The  Dividing  Hypotheses. 

6.  The  Apologists  of  the  Epistles. 

7.  Eesult. 


INTRODUCTION. 


§  1.    FOUNDING  OF  THE  SCIENCE  OF  INTRODUCTION. 

1.  THE  history  of  the  origin  of  the  New  Testament  Canon 
gave  spontaneous  rise  to  a  series  of  enquiries,  in  which  the 
science  of  Introduction  afterwards  originated.  When  the 
historical  memorials  of  the  apostolic  time  began  to  acquire 
regulating  importance  in  the  Church,  this  period  already  lay 
more  than  a  century  behind  the  Church  Fathers,  who  made 
the  origin  of  these  memorials  the  basis  of  their  recognition. 
In  the  writings  of  the  intervening  time  only  isolated  refe- 
rences to  this  origin  occur ;  for  the  most  part  the  gap  was 
bridged  over  by  oral  tradition  alone.  Even  so  early  as  the 
end  of  the  second  century,  all  desire  for  more  exact  knowledge 
as  to  the  circumstances  of  their  origin  was  virtually  met  by  a 
reference  to  the  utterances  of  these  writings  themselves  and 
to  conclusions  derived  from  their  contents.  But  when,  in  the 
third  century,  the  need  arose  of  limiting  the  circle  of  writings 
that  should  be  valid  for  the  Church,  it  immediately  became 
apparent  that  their  transmission  was  neither  uniform  nor 
assured ;  hence  the  necessity  and  warrant  to  test  it  by  the 
character  of  the  writings  themselves.  The  utterances  of 
Origen  respecting  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  of  Diony- 
sius  of  Alexandria  respecting  the  writings  transmitted  as 
Johannine,  already  involve  a  criticism  on  internal  grounds. 
Eusebius  of  Csesarea,  in  his  Church  History  (about  324), 
set  himself  the  task  of  collecting  all  that  he  regarded  as 
important  in  the  opinions  of  earlier  writers  respecting  the 

1 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

Holy  Scriptures,  and  sought  to  classify  them  according  to 
the  degree  of  their  ecclesiastical  recognition  in  tradition.  His 
work,  notwithstanding  its  many  deficiencies,  is  still  the  richest 
and  most  indispensable  mine  that  we  possess  for  the  history 
of  the  Canon,  as  well  as  for  that  of  the  origin  of  its  various 
writings.  He  was  closely  followed  by  Jerome,  towards  the 
end  of  the  century,  in  his  compilation,  De  Viris  IHustribu* 
s.  Catalogus  Scriptorum  Ecclesiasticorum  (392),  besides  which, 
there  is  nothing  of  importance  except  a  few  particulars  con- 
tained in  the  introductions  of  Chrysostom's  commentaries 
and  homilies.  Of  the  notices  given  by  Bible  manuscripts  in 
their  \nro6fcreis  or  canon-lists,  some  are  very  scanty,  others 
manifestly  incorrect.  Augustine  indeed  indulges  in  theore- 
tical discussions  as  to  the  principles  of  canonicity  in  his 
work  De  Doctrina  Christiana,  but  he  does  not  get  beyond  the 
enumeration  of  our  twenty-seven  New  Testament  books, 
which  were  canonized  by  the  African  synods  in  his  time  and 
under  his  influence. 

2.  Throughout  the  Middle  Ages  the  world  was  content 
with  the  "  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  " 
(Institutiones  Divinarum  et  Scecularium  Lcctionum),  written 
by  Magnus  Aurelius  Cassiodorus  for  the  monks  of  his 
cloister,  which  however,  with  respect  to  the  Canon,  goes 
back  only  to  Jerome  and  Augustine.1  Nor  did  the  Reforma- 
tion period  achieve  a  revision  of  the  established  ecclesiastical 
tradition  respecting  the  Canon,  on  the  basis  of  independent 

1  The  introductory*  $acra  tcriptura  whom  he  enumerates,  1,  16,  and 
among  whom  the  work  of  Adrian  expressly  bears  the  title  of  an  cl<rayuyr) 
tit  rdt  Odat  ypa<f>dt,  are  occupied  almost  exclusively  with  hermeneutio 
rules.  The  work  of  his  contemporary,  the  African  Junilius  (Inttituta 
Regularia  Divinte  Legit),  following  the  tradition  of  the  Syrian  school  at 
Nisibis,  alone  enters  into  a  classification  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  according 
to  their  authority,  which  substantially  goes  back  to  thai  of  Ensebins. 
Again,  the  Isagoge  ad  Sacrat  Literal  of  the  Dominican  Santes  Pagninus 
(Lucca,  1536),  which  as  regards  the  Canon  simply  copies  Augustine, 
is  essentially  hermeneutio,  also  the  Clavi*  Scriptura  Sacra  of  Matthias 
Flacius  (Basle,  1567). 


FOUNDING  OF  THE   SCIENCE   OF  INTEODUCTION.       3 

historical  research.  Men  like  Erasmus  and  Cajetan,  Luther 
and  Carlstadt  did  indeed  incidentally  go  back,  in  the  Catholic 
and  Protestant  interest  respectively,  to  the  varying  opinions 
of  the  Fathers  before  the  time  of  the  relative  close  of 
the  Canon;  Luther  even  venturing  to  assume  an  attitude 
hostile  to  tradition  by  an  independent  criticism  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. But  after  the  Catholic  Church  at  the  Council  of 
Trent  (1546)  had  given  ecclesiastical  sanction  to  the  estab- 
lished Canon,  Sixtus  of  Siena,  the  learned  Dominican,  in 
his  Bibliotheca  Sancta  (Venice,  1566),  could  only  make  it 
his  aim  to  defend  this  Canon  against  all  heretical  attacks, 
while  Protestant  theology,  which  asserted  Holy  Scripture  to 
be  the  only  source  and  standard  of  all  truth,  in  opposition 
to  the  tradition  of  the  Catholic  Church,  could  not  possibly 
be  disposed  to  throw  doubt  on  the  established  Canon  by  re- 
searches of  an  historical  and  critical  nature.  It  was  her 
interest  rather  to  establish  the  theory  of  its  inspiration,  and 
to  prove  the  authenticity  of  Holy  Scripture  throughout. 
After  Andreas  Rivetus,  in  his  Isagoge  s.  Introductio  Generalis 
ad  Scripturam  Sacram  V.  T.  et  N.  T.  (Lugd.  B.,  1627),  had 
in  this  respect  taken  the  lead  in  the  Reformed  interest, 
Lutheran  theologians,  such  as  Michael  Walther  (Officina 
Biblica,  Lips.,  1636),  and  Reformed,  such  as  Job..  Heinr. 
Heidegger  (Enchiridion  Biblicon,  Tigur.,  1681),  vied  with 
each  other  in  an  uncritical  accumulation  of  the  necessary 
patristic  material.  It  was  only  in  Socinian  and  Arminian 
circles  that  a  more  independent  judgment  respecting  the 
origin  of  individual  New  Testament  writings  was  ventured 
upon  (e.g.  Hugo  Grotius,  in  his  Annotationes  in  N.  T.,  Paris, 
1644).  Such  truly  scientific  work  as  was  applied  to  the 
New  Testament  confined  itself  to  an  examination  of  lan- 
guage and  text,  as  for  example  the  copious  Prolegomena 
to  the  London  Polyglot  of  Brian  Walton,  Bishop  of  Chester, 
1657. 
3.  Ricnard  Simon,  the  learned  Oratorian  of  Paris,  is  re- 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

garded  as  the  founder  of  the  science  of  Introduction.  His 
desire  was  to  show  Protestants  the  untrustworthy  character 
of  their  Scripture  principle,  and  therefore  his  attention  was 
mainly  directed  to  the  history  of  the  New  Testament  text, 
which  according  to  him  had  already  undergone  many  cor- 
ruptions and  alterations  in  the  course  of  time,  after  the 
originals  had  been  lost.  He  also  enters  minutely  into  the 
history  of  the  translations  and  explanations  of  the  NCAV 
Testament,  protests  most  emphatically  against  a  mechanical 
conception  of  the  inspiration  of  the  word  of  Scripture  as 
such,  and  asserts  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  proceeded  from 
authors  who,  though  inspired,  were  still  human.  It  is 
true  he  is  far  from  giving  an  independent  criticism  of  the 
New  Testament  Scriptures  on  internal  grounds.  He  enters, 
however,  very  fully  into  the  divergent  opinions  of  the 
Church  Fathers  and  heretics  with  regard  to  individual 
writings,  which  he  was  able  to  do  with  greater  impartiality, 
since  his  Church  had  by  its  decision  put  an  end  to  all  vacil- 
lation. From  his  standpoint  it  is  possible  for  him  to  adhere 
to  the  Hebrew  original  of  Matthew  and  to  form  a  more 
unbiassed  opinion  respecting  the  relation  between  it  and  the 
Greek  Gospel;  he  can  incline  towards  the  theory  of  a 
Pauline  authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  which  ia 
only  indirect,  and  where  the  language  of  the  New  Testament 
is  concerned,  can  side  entirely  with  the  Hebraists  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Purists;  and  he  can  freely  discuss  the  genuineness 
of  the  conclusion  of  Mark's  gospel,  the  paragraph  respecting 
the  woman  taken  in  adultery,  and  the  passage  1  John  v.  7 ; 
but  his  judgment  is  still  for  the  most  part  reserved.1  It  was 
not  so  much  the  individual  results  at  which  he  arrived  as  the 


1  The  principal  work  of  Simon  bearing  upon  the  New  Testament  ia 
his  Hittoire  critique  du  texte  du  N.  T.  (Rotterd.,  1689),  with  which  jom- 
pare  the  addenda  in  his  Nouvelle*  observations  tur  le  texte,  etc.  (Pane, 
1695).  The  first  nineteen  chapters  in  particular  treat  of  the  authenticity 
of  the  New  Testament  writings  and  their  succession.  His  Hittoire 


FOUNDING  OF  THE   SCIENCE   OF  INTRODUCTION.       5 

new  spirit  of  genuine  historical  inquiry  that  pervaded  his 
works,  bringing  the  Holy  Scriptures  into  suspicious  analogy 
to  other  literary  testimony,  that  drew  upon  him  decided 
opposition  even  on  the  Catholic  side  (e.g.  J.  B.  Bossuet). 
In  any  case,  estimable  Catholic  scholars,  such  as  Ellies  du 
Pin  (Dissertation  preliminaire  ou  prolegomenes  sur  la  bible; 
Paris,  1699)  and  Augustin  Calmet  (Dissertations  qui  peuvent 
servir  de  prolegomenes  de  l-ecriture  sainte,  Avignon,  1715, 
much  enlarged  edition)  did  not  continue  the  work  in  his 
spirit.  On  the  Protestant  side,  J.  Heinr.  Mai  wrote  a  con- 
tinuous criticism  of  his  work,  which  was  very  favourably 
received  (Examen  Historicce  Criticce  N.  T.  a  R.  8.  vulgatce, 
Gissss,  1694) ;  while  others,  on  the  Lutheran  side  (Joh. 
Georg  Pritius,  Introductio  in  Lectionem  N.  T.,  Lips.,  1704), 
as  well  as  the  Reformed  (Salomo  van  Til,  Opus  Analyticum, 
Traj.  ad  Rh.,  1730)  kept  to  the  old  course  of  accumulating 
learned  material  without  independent  scientific  elabora- 
tion. 

4.  The  department  of  the  history  of  the  text  was  the 
first  in  which  a  freer  scientific  movement  and  the  begin- 
nings of  true  criticism  were  reached.  In  the  prolegomena 
which  John  Mill  prefixed  to  his  critical  edition  of  the  New 
Testament  (Oxford,  1707)  the  ideas  current  in  the  Church  as 
to  the  origin  of  the  N".  T.  writings  are  adhered  to  absolutely 
and  defended  against  all  objections;  but  his  very  history 
of  the  text  shows  that  at  the  hands  of  the  copyists  it  met 
with  a  fate  exactly  analogous  to  that  of  other  works  of 
antiquity,  and  his  rich  collection  of  various  readings  made 
inevitable  the  need  of  a  critical  examination  and  amendment 
of  the  text  accepted  by  the  Church.  This  work  was  in  fact 
vigorously  commenced  by  the  Wurtemberg  prelate,  Joh. 

critique  des  versions  (Eotterd.,  1690),  and  Des  principaux  commentateurt 
du  N.  T.  (Rotterd.,  1693),  is  of  still  greater  importance.  Respecting  it, 
comp.  Graf,  in  Die  Beitrage  zu  d.  theol.  Witt.,  Heft  1  (Jena,  1847) ;  and 
Baur  in  Die  Theol.  Jahrb.,  1850,  4. 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

Albr.  Bengel,  in  his  critical  edition  of  the  New  Testament 
(Tubingen,  1734),  and  by  Job.  Jac.  Wetstein  of  Basle,  in 
bis  Prolegomena  to  tbe  New  Testament  (Amstelod.,  1730), 
wbich  appeared  in  an  altered  and  enlarged  form  in  bis  edi- 
tion of  the  New  Testament  (1750-51).  Joh.  Dav.  Michaelit 
also,  in  bis  "Introduction  to  the  New  Testament"  (Got- 
tingen,  1750),  which  at  first  followed  R.  Simon  closely,  but 
in  the  fourth  edition  (1788)  swelled  out  from  a  moderate 
octavo  into  two  large  quarto  volumes,  occupies  himself  in 
the  first  part  mainly  with  the  history  of  the  text,  but  in 
the  second  part  with  the  origin  of  all  the  New  Testament 
books ;  from  which  the  object  of  such  a  work  may  be  seen, 
and  the  true  starting-point  supplied  in  order  to  a  right 
understanding  of  it.  But  this  great  increase  in  size  not  only 
yielded  new  results  in  the  department  of  textual  criticism ; 
the  conception  of  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole,  as  well  as 
the  treatment  of  its  separate  books,  is  unmistakably  pene- 
trated by  the  spirit  of  a  new  period  which  had  meanwhile 
dawned.  The  first  edition  starts  with  an  assumption  that 
these  books  were  inspired,  and  proceeds  to  prove  it  by  an 
appeal  to  miracles  and  prophecy  as  well  as  the  unanimous 
testimony  of  the  ancient  Church ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  fourth  edition  gives  prominence  to  the  argument  for  their 
authenticity  and  credibility.1  The  work,  translated  into 
various  languages,  into  English  by  Herbert  Marsh  (Cam- 

1  A  distinction  is  drawn  between  the  writings  of  the  apostles  and  those 
of  their  disciples,  whose  inspiration  he  regards  as  doubtful  in  proportion 
to  distance  of  time.  With  admirable  candour  tbe  tradition  respecting 
each  single  work  is  examined,  while  mention  is  also  made  of  later  doubts. 
Cautions  as  his  judgment  is,  he  is  not  unaffected  by  the  spirit  of  a  freer 
criticism.  It  is  a  doubtful  point  with  him  whether  Paul  wrote  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Although  we  cannot  come  to  full  certainty  as 
to  who  was  tbe  author  of  the  Epistle  of  James,  he  finds  it  more  and 
more  probable  that  he  was  the  half-brother  of  Jesus,  not  the  apostle.  He 
cannot  accept  the  Epistle  of  Jude  as  canonical ;  and  it  appears  to  him 
almost  supposititious.  As  to  his  uncertainty  with  respect  to  the  Reve- 
lation of  John,  he  thinks  it  necessary  to  excuse  himself  at  length. 


CRITICISM  AND  APOLOGETICS.  7 

bridge,  1793),  who  furnished  it  with  notes  and  additions 
(comp.  the  German  translation  of  them  by  Rosenmiiller, 
Gott.,  1795,  1803)  is  the  first  comprehensive  attempt  to 
extend  the  science  of  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament, 
and  accomplishes  all  that  the  means  and  the  method  of 
his  time  rendered  possible. 

§2.    CRITICISM  AND  APOLOGETICS. 

1.  The  revolution  that  made  way  for  a  freer  examination 
of  the  Canon  and  the  individual  books  of  the  New  Testament 
•was  mainly  the  work  of  Joh.  Salomo  Semler.  In  his  Ab- 
liandlung  von  freier  Untersuchung  des  Kanon  (Halle,  1771- 
75,  comp.  Apparatus  ad  liberalem  Ni  Ti  Interpretationem, 
Halee,  1767)  he  originated  and  defended  with  indefatiga- 
ble zeal  his  distinction  between  that  which  in  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures  was  to  be  regarded  as  the  Word 
of  God  or  canonical  and  which  according  to  him  was  to  be 
found  only  in  what  conduced  to  moral  improvement,  and 
that  which  was  local,  temporal  and  Judaizing  in  them,  mak- 
ing the  Apocalypse  in  particular  so  distasteful  to  him,  and 
the  theory  of  its  apostolic  origin  so  hard  to  accept.  The 
current  conception  of  inspiration  was  thus  abandoned,  and 
the  canonical  authority  of  each  separate  book  made  inde- 
pendent of  the  view  taken  of  its  origin.  The  questions  of 
their  genuineness  and  integrity  could  now  be  discussed  with 
perfect  impartiality,  and  just  in  proportion  to  the  closeness 
of  connection  between  the  former  dogmatic  idea  of  the  Canon 
and  the  views  of  its  origin  that  had  been  handed  down,  was 
the  polemic  against  it  characterized  by  a  tendency  to  bring 
everything  to  light  and  to  lay  stress  on  what  appeared  to 
contradict  it.1  The  epoch-making  influence  of  Semler  is 

1  Semler  produced  little  of  importance  in  the  department  of  New 
Testament  criticism,  although  he  gave  currency  to  many  doubts  with 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

already  visible  in  Alex.  Haenlein  (Handluch  der  Einleitung  in 
die  Schriften  des  N.  T.,  Erlangen,  1794-1800,  2.  Aufl.  1801-9). 
Here  already,  proof  of  the  genuineness,  integrity  and  credi- 
bility of  the  New  Testament  writings  takes  the  place  of 
discussions  on  inspiration.  The  traditional  views  of  their 
origin  are  indeed  almost  universally  adhered  to,  but  in  many 
cases  only  a  preponderance  of  probability  is  claimed  for 
them.  Joh.  Ernst  Christ.  Schmidt  makes  a  still  more  de- 
termined attempt  to  relegate  all  examination  respecting  the 
Divine  origin  of  these  writings  entirely  to  the  sphere  of  dog- 
matics, expressly  and  designedly  entitling  his  "  Historico- 
critical  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,"  A  Critical 
History  of  the  New  Testament  Writings  (Giessen,  1804,  1805, 
under  new  titles,  1809,  1818) .  In  pleasing  style  he  examines 
the  origin  of  the  separate  books  and  their  reception  into  the 
Canon,  letting  the  history  of  the  text  follow,  but  extends 
his  inquiry  also  to  several  ancient  writings  outside  the 
Canon.  In  many  cases  the  examination  arrives  at  no  cer- 
tain conclusion  ;  already  doubts  crop  up  respecting  2  Thess. 
and  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy,  while  the  second  Epistle  of 
Peter  is  still  more  decidedly  said  to  be  supposititious.  J.  F. 
Kleuker,  however,  put  forth  his  Ausfiihrliche  Untersuchungen 
der  Qrilnde  fwr  die  Aechtheit  und  Glaubwiirdigkeit  der  schrift- 

respect  to  individual  books  of  the  New  Testament,  emphasised  anew  the 
difference  between  the  Apocalypse  and  the  Gospel  of  John,  doubted  the 
direct  apostolic  origin  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  first 
Epistle  of  Peter,  and  brought  2  Peter,  with  Jude,  low  down  into  the 
second  century,  when  the  Canon  was  first  settled  as  a  work  of  the 
Catholic  uniting  process.  He  was  all  the  more  diligent  in  spreading 
and  recommending  foreign  works  adapted  to  further  the  treatment  of 
the  New  Testament  favourable  to  his  own  view.  Hence  appeared,  in  a 
German  translation  by  H.  M.  Aug.  Cramer,  Richard  Simon's  critical 
writings  on  the  New  Testament,  with  n  preface  and  remarks  by  Seinler, 
1776-80.  Semler  published  Wctstcin's  Prolegomena,  with  remarks,  Halle, 
1764,  as  well  as  Oder't  Work  on  the  Apocalypse,  Halle,  1769.  Comp. 
Corrodi,  Vertuch  einer  Beltuchtung  der  Qetchichte  d.  jiid.  und  chrittl. 
Bibclkanon,  1792.  Weber,  Beitrdge  zur  Qetchichte  dei  neuteitamentlichen 
Kanon,  1798. 


CEITICISM  AND  APOLOGETICS.  9 

lichen  "Urkunden   des  ChristentTiums  (Hamb.,   1788-1800)   in 
opposition  to  the  criticisms  of  Rationalism. 

2.  "With  full  knowledge  of  the  new  principle,  in  pursuance 
of  which  "  the  attempt  was  made  to  read  and  examine  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament  from  a  human  point  of  view," 
Joh.  Gottfried  EicTihom  (Einl.  in  das  N.T.,  5  Bde.,  Gott.  1804- 
27),  was  the  first  who  tried  to  raise  the  science  of  Introduc- 
tion to  a  criticism  of  the  Canon.  The  reaction  against  the 
former  fetters  of  tradition  naturally  led  to  a  one-sided  dis- 
regard of  it,  as  well  as  to  its  rejection  on  insufficient  grounds. 
It  was  now  replaced  by  independent  examination  of  the 
Scriptures,  ingenious  combination,  by  which  new  links  were 
sought  for  discovered  data,  and  a  mania  for  hypothesis.  The 
famous  hypothesis  of  a  primitive  written  gospel,  by  which 
Eichhorn  endeavoured  to  solve  the  synoptical  problem,  is 
characteristic  of  this  stage  of  criticism.  He  also  solves  the 
problem  of  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter  by  a  mediating  hypo- 
thesis. Still  the  criticism  seldom  ventures  decidedly  to  dis- 
pute authenticity ;  the  genuineness  of  the  Johannine  writings 
was  not  yet  doubted,  and  it  was  only  the  Pastoral  Epistles, 

2  Peter  and  Jude,  that  were  rejected.     The  history  of  the 
collecting  of  the  books  and  of  their  text  does  not  occur  till 
the  fourth  and  fifth  volumes.     Eichhorn  is  closely  followed 
by  Bertholdt  and   Schott,  who  wished  to  adjust  the  results 
of  criticism  to  the  current  views,  by  means  of  ever  new 
hypotheses.1     This  arbitrary  indulgence  in  hypothesis  was 
opposed  by  the  Catholic  professor,  Joh.  Leonhard  Hug,  at 
Freiburg  (Einl.  in  die  Schriften  des  N.T.,  Tubingen,  1808, 

3  Ausg.,  1820).      With  comprehensive  learning  and  inde- 

1  The  heavy  compilation  of  Leonhard  Bertholdt  (Historisch-krititche 
Einl.  in  sammtliche  kanonische  und  apokryphische  Schriften  det  A.  und 
N.T.,  6  Thle.,  Erlang.  1812-19),  by  the  very  arrangement  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  writings  under  the  categories  of  historical,  prophetic, 
and  poetical  books,  shows  want  of  historical  perception.  The  Isagoge 
Historico-Critica  in  Libroi  Novi  Fcederis  Sacros,  of  Heinr.  Aug.  Schott, 
rich  in  literary  information,  gives  a  better  survey. 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

pendent  investigation  of  the  whole  material,  he  advanced, 
chiefly  in  his  General  Introduction,  the  history  of  the  Canon 
and  of  the  Text,  while  the  special  part  aims  at  a  scientific 
apology  for  the  traditional  views  respecting  the  origin  of  the 
individual  books  of  the  New  Testament.  But  it  is  just  here 
that  we  see  how  even  Apologetics  is  unable  to  withstand  the 
current  of  the  time.  The  acute  reasoning  with  which  Hug 
defends  traditional  views  is  often  as  rich  in  subjective  judg- 
ments and  artificial  combinations  as  is  that  of  the  criticism. 
His  clever  mode  of  presentation  gained  much  acceptance  and 
currency  for  the  work,  even  among  Protestant  theologians  ; 
it  was  translated  into  English  and  French,  and  even  after 
the  author's  death  a  fourth  edition  appeared,  in  1847.  The 
Catholic  theologian,  Andr.  Benedict  Feilmoser  (Einl.  in  die 
Biicher  des  Neuen  Bundes,  Innsbruck,  1810),  enters  far  more 
deeply  and  with  some  impartiality  into  Protestant  researches, 
especially  in  the  second  edition  which  is  thoroughly  revised 
and  greatly  enlarged  (Tubingen,  1830). 

3.  As  Schleiermacher  promised  to  bring  out  dogmatically 
the  opposition  between  snpernaturalism  and  rationalism,  so 
too  he  sought  in  the  department  of  the  science  of  Introduc- 
tion to  strike  out  new  plans,  by  his,  to  some  extent,  classical 
research  of  details  respecting  the  testimony  of  Papias  with 
regard  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  as  also  respecting  the  Gospel 
of  Luke  and  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy.  His  lectures 
on  the  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  after  having  long 
exercised  a  powerful  influence  on  Protestant  theology,  were 
first  edited  in  1845,  by  E.  Wolde.  His  standpoint  was  most 
distinctly  occupied  by  Wiih.  Martin  Leberecht  de  Wette,  in 
his  Lehrbuch  der  historisch-kritischen  Einl.  in  die  Kanonischen 
Biicher  des  N.  T.  (Berlin,  1826),  which,  remarkable  tor  the 
precision  of  its  style  and  its  perspicuously  grouped  wealth 
of  material,  was  widely  circulated,  passing  through  many 
editions.  The  independent  examination  of  the  separate 
books  is  much  more  minute  and  thorough,  but  the  doubts 


CEITICISM  AND  APOLOGETICS.  11 

arising  out  of  it  are  often  much  more  subjective  in  their 
character.  On  the  other  hand  its  criticism  is  equally 
directed  against  the  new  hypothesis,  and  a  stricter  scientific 
investigation  of  detail  leads  to  a  truer  appreciation  of  the 
tradition  that  had  so  hastily  been  rejected.  Hence  a  certain 
vacillation,  the  criticism  becomes  sceptical,  it  remains  in 
doubt,  suspending  its  judgment,  or  ends  with  a  purely  ne- 
gative conclusion,1  Karl  Aug.  Credner's  Einleitung  in  das 
N.  T.  (Halle,  1836),  takes  up  essentially  the  same  standpoint 
as  de  Wette's.  Only  the  first  part  of  his  projected  com- 
prehensive Introduction  appeared,  which,  in  addition  to  a 
history  of  the  science  of  Introduction,  treats  of  the  origin 
of  the  separate  N".  T.  writings.  His  Geschichte  des  N.  T. 
Kanon  was  edited  from  his  papers,  after  his  death,  by  E. 
VolJcmar,  who  made  additions  to  it  (Berlin,  1860,  comp. 
Zur  Geschichte  des  Kanon,  Halle,  1847).  A  very  heavy 
compendium  and  survey  of  all  recent  research  was  put 
forth  by  Ch.  Gotthold  Neudecker  (Lehrbuch  der  Histor.-lcrit. 
Einl.  in  das  N.  T.,  Leipzig,  1840),  but  has  no  independent 
scientific  value.2 

4.  Against  the  criticism  of  de  Wette,  Heinr.  Ernst.  Fred. 
GuericJce  directed  his  Beitrdge  zur  historisch-Tcritischen  Einl. 
ins  N.  T.  (Halle,  1828-31),  which  was  afterwards  followed 
by  his  Histor.  Jcrit.  Einl.  in  das  N.  T.  (Leipz.,  1843),  a 
defence  of  collective  tradition  respecting  the  Canon,  on  the 

1  Many  of  his  earlier  expressed  doubts  (e.g.  as  to  the  second  Epistle 
to  the  Thessalonians)  have  been  retracted  by  de  Wette  in  later  editions ; 
he  has  come  forward  more  and  more  decidedly  in  favour  of  John's 
Gospel  the  favourite  of  the  school  of  Schleiermacher,  who  sacrificed  the 
Apocalypse  to  it ;  but  he  never  got  over  his  doubts  respecting  the 
Ephesian  Epistle,  1  Peter  and  James.    As  to  the  Pastoral  Epistles  and 
2  Peter,  he  declared  them  to  be  unapostolio.    The  history  of  the  N.  T. 
Canon  is  found  along  with  the  history  of  the  science  of  Introduction  in 
the  first  part  of  his  manual,  which  specially  contains  an  Introduction  to 
the  Old  Testament  (Berlin,  1817). 

2  From  some  such  critical  standpoint  was  produced  the  excellent 
Biblical  Dictionary  of  Benedict  Winer  (Leipzig,  1820,  3  Aufl.,  1847-8). 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

old  dogmatic  lines.  Next  to  him  special  mention  is  due  to 
Hermann  Olshausen  who  had  already  entered  npon  this  de- 
partment by  his  book  on  the  genuineness  of  the  four  canonical 
gospels  (Konigsberg,  1823)  and  a  contemporaneous  work 
on  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter ;  and  after  1830  had  turned 
aside  the  criticism  of  de  Wette  in  the  introductions  to  his 
Biblischer  Commentar  with  remarks  that,  to  speak  the  truth, 
have  little  weight.  A  far  more  important  work  was  Aug. 
Neander'a  History  of  the  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  by  the  Apostles  (Hamburg,  1832),  in  which  also 
the  origin  and  genuineness  of  all  the  N.  T.  writings  are 
discussed,  with  most  important  concessions  to  criticism  in 
respect  to  1  Timothy  and  2  Peter.  The  fourth  and  last 
edition,  revised  by  himself  (1847,  comp.  5  Ann.,  1862),  was 
in  the  notes  directed  against  the  new  critical  school  then 
emerging.  The  Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken  in  parti- 
cular have  worked  in  his  spirit  since  the  year  1828. 


§  3.    THB  TOBINGEN  SCHOOL  AND  ITS  OPPONENTS. 

1.  The  merit  of  having  placed  the  criticism  of  the  N.  T. 
Canon  in  fruitful  connection  with  the  historical  investiga- 
tion of  primitive  Christianity  belongs  to  the  Tubingen  pro- 
fessor, Ferdinand  Christian  v.  Baur.  He  it  was  who  first 
made  it  the  problem  of  criticism,  (instead  of  being  satisfied 
to  dispute,  with  more  or  less  confidence,  the  genuineness  of 
this  or  that  N.  T.  writing,)  to  assign  to  each  work  its  place 
in  the  history  of  the  development  of  primitive  Christianity, 
to  determine  the  relations  to  which  it  owes  its  origin,  the 
object  at  which  it  aims,  and  the  views  it  represents. 

Thus  criticism  which  had  been  till  then  of  a  prevailing  lite- 
rary character,  became  truly  historic.  Now  began  a  much 
more  incisive,  more  objective  analysis  of  the  individual  books 
as  to  their  composition  and  peculiar  theological  character, 


THE  TUBINGEN  SCHOOL  AND  ITS  OPPONENTS.       13 

a  more  exhaustive  examination  of  ecclesiastical  tradition, 
which  was  itself  considered  in  its  connection  with  the  history 
of  the  development  of  the  Church,  in  which  the  N".  T. 
writings  form  essential  factors.  Banr  began  his  critical 
labours  with  separate  enquiries,  in  the  Tubingen  Zeitschrift 
respecting  the  Christ-party  in  Corinth  (1831),  with  his  work 
on  the  Pastoral  Epistles  (1835),  as  well  as  with  treatises  on 
the  design  and  the  occasion  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
(1836),  and  Origin  of  the  Episcopacy  (1838)  in  the  Tubingen 
Zeitschrift.  It  became  clearer  and  clearer  to  his  mind 
that  the  apostolic  era  was  powerfully  affected  by  the  con- 
flict between  early  apostolic  Jewish  Christianity,  which 
was  essentially  Ebionite,  and  the  anti- Jewish  universalism 
of  Paul.  While  regarding  the  former  as  represented  in  the 
Apocalypse  of  the  Apostle  John,  the  sole  remaining  monu- 
ments of  the  latter  are,  in  his  view,  the  great  doctrinal  and 
controversial  epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Galatians,  Corinthians, 
and  Romans.  In  his  great  work  on  Paul  (1845)  he  sought 
to  prove  the  supposititious  character  of  all  other  Pauline 
writings,  endeavouring  at  the  same  time  to  show  that  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  which  was  strongly  at  variance  with 
his  conception  of  primitive  Christianity,  was  unhistorical. 
Hence  the  smaller  Pauline  epistles,  as  well  as  those  N.  T. 
writings  professedly  belonging  to  the  original  apostolic 
circle,  could  only  be  monuments  of  that  reconciliation  of 
opposites  which  was  on  many  sides  being  gradually  effected 
in  the  second  century,  and  which  after  gnosis  had  been 
overcome  and  orthodox  doctrine  assured  by  the  building  up 
of  hierarchical  forms  (comp.  the  Pastoral  Epistles),  found 
its  doctrinal  solution  in  bringing  together  Peter  and  Paul 
as  the  authorized  teachers  of  the  Catholic  Church  (comp. 
2  Peter)  and  in  the  Johannine  literature  (about  170).  His 
collected  critical  researches  respecting  the  Gospels  (1847) 
pointed  out  the  way  in  which  the  literature  of  our  Gospels 
also  fits  in  with  the  course  of  this  development.  In  his 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

work  Da$  Christenthum  und  die  christliche  Kirche  der  drei 
eraten  Jahrhunderte  (Tubingen,  1853,  3te  Aufl.,  1863),  Baur 
condensed  the  result  of  all  his  researches  in  this  department. 
Compare  also  Baur :  An  Herrn  Dr.  K.  Hose,  Tubingen, 
1855  ;  Die  Tubingen  Schule  und  ihre  Stellung  zur  Gegenwart, 
Tubingen,  1859,  2te  Aufl.,  1860 ;  and  in  addition,  Uhlhorn 
in  the  Jahrb.f.  deutsche  TheoL,  1858. 

2.  What  made  this  appearance  of  Baur  so  important 
was  the  fact  that  a  number  of  gifted  disciples  stood  at  his 
side  from  the  commencement,  who  were  actively  employed 
in  carrying  out  his  views  with  acuteness  and  learning,  by 
means  of  the  most  exhaustive  examination  of  details,  so 
that  mention  is  commonly  made  of  a  Tubingen  school. 
The  most  important  of  them,  Eduard  Zeller,  published 
after  1842,  and  subsequently  in  connection  with  Baur,  the 
Theologische  Jahrbiicher,  in  which  most  of  these  works 
first  appeared.  Before  the  master  himself  had  reached  the 
result  of  his  conclusions,  Albert  Schwegler  brought  out  a 
history  of  the  historical  development  of  the  apostolic  and 
post-apostolic  age,  brilliant  in  style,  in  which  carrying  out 
Baur's  tendency-criticism  and  from  Baur's  point  of  view, 
he.  assigned  their  part  to  the  N.T.  writings  and  the  litera- 
ture of  the  second  century  (das  Nachapostolische  Zeitalter  in 
den  Hauptmomenten  seiner  Enturickelung,  Tubing.,  1846-47). 
But  it  soon  became  evident  that  this  development  and  the 
position  assigned  to  the  separate  books  in  it,  admitted  views 
very  divergent  in  character  though  starting  from  essentially 
the  same  standpoint,  such  as  were  developed  by  two  other 
pupils  of  Baur,  G.  Plank  (Judenthum  und  Urchristenthum), 
and  G.  B>.  Koestlin  (Zur  Geschichte  des  Urchristenthums) 
in  the  TheoL  Jahrb.  of  1847  and  1850,  and  presented  by 
Albrecht  Bitschl  in  his  Entstchung  der  altkatholischen  Kirche 
(Bonn,  1850).  Bruno  Bauer  took  up  with  respect  to  the 
criticism  of  the  Tubingen  school  a  position  that  was  quite 
isolated,  for  after  his  condensed  critical  researches  respect. 


THE   TlfBINQBN   SCHOOL  AND  ITS   OPPONENTS.       15 

ing  the  Gospels  had  deprived  them  of  the  last  remnant  of 
historical  foundation  (Kritik  der  Evangelien,  Berlin,  1850- 
52),  he  turned  to  the  criticism  of  the  Acts  (1850)  and  the 
Pauline  Epistles  (1850-52),  all  of  which  he  declared  to  be 
supposititious.  He  afterwards  made  a  second  attempt  to 
set  forth  his  entire  conception  of  Christianity  (Christus  und 
die  Ccesaren,  1877;  mit  einem  Nachwort  von  1880),  in  which 
these  writings  figure  as  a  product  of  the  years  1830-70. 
His  works  had  no  appreciable  influence  on  scientific  pro- 
gress. 

3.  Orthodox  theology  naturally  felt  called  npon  to  defend 
itself  with  energy  against  a  criticism  which  in  its  results 
led  to  a  dissolution  of  the  Canon  as  such,  and  allowed  the 
greater  number  of  its  constituent  parts  to  be  lost  in  the 
stream  of  the  history  of  doctrine  along  with  other  works 
of  a  very  different  character.  After  Heinr.  Bottger's  half- 
ironical  disposal  of  Baur  (Baur's  historische  Kritik  in  ihrer 
Consequenz,  Braunschweig,  1840-41),  W.  0.  Dietlein  (das 
Urchristenthum,  Halle,  1845)  undertook  to  represent  the 
history  of  the  first  two  centuries  rather  as  the  struggle  of 
a  united  apostolic  Christianity  with  Jewish- Gentile  Gnosis. 
Heinrich  W.  J.  Thiersch,  in  his  Versuch  zur  Herstellung  des 
historischen  Standpunkts  fur  die  Kritik  der  NTlichen  Schriften 
(Erlangen,  1845),  defended  the  genuineness  of  the  entire 
Canon  against  all  the  attacks  of  modern  criticism.  In  a 
somewhat  milder  form  and  not  without  traces  of  the  influ- 
ence of  modern  enquiry,  he  afterwards  published  his  views 
in  the  first  part  of  a  history  of  Christian  antiquity  (Die 
Kirche  im  apostolischen  Zeitalter  und  die  Untstehung  der 
NTlichen  Schriften,  Frankfurt  a.  M.,  1852,  3  Aufl.,  1879). 
The  learned  investigations  of  C.  Wieseler  show  that  it  was 
also  possible  from  this  standpoint  to  be  entirely  unaffected 
by  modern  criticism,  as  appears  in  his  chronology  of  the 
apostolic  period  (Gott.,  1848),  in  which  a  number  of  im- 
portant questions  belonging  to  Introduction  are  discussed 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

(comp.  his  Comm.  z.  Qalaterbrief,  Gott.,  1859 ;  and  Zur 
Geschichte  der  NTlichen  Schriften,  Leipzig,  1880).  On  the 
other  hand,  /.  H.  A.  Ebrard,  in  his  Wissenschaftliche 
Kritik  der  evangelischen  Oeschichte,  2  Aufl.  (Erlangen,  1850), 
directed  his  half- spiteful,  half-scoffing  polemic  against  the 
Tubingen  school,  and  undertook,  after  1850  (Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews),  to  carry  out  and  elaborate  anew  Olshausen's 
Biblical  Commentary,  in  connection  with  J.  T.  A.  Wiesinger, 
who  worked  upon  the  Epistles  to  the  Philippians,  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  and  those  of  James,  Peter,  and  Jude,  in  a 
more  thoughtful  way,  in  declared  opposition  to  the  Tubingen 
school  (1850-62).  0.  V.  Lechler  endeavoured  to  refute  the 
Tubingen  view  of  the  development  of  primitive  Christianity 
in  an  historical  way,  weaving  his  conservative  views  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  N.T.  books  into  the  work  (Das  apostolische 
und  nach-apostolische  Zeitalter,  Stuttgart,  1851,  3  Aufl., 
1855).  Comp.  also  John  Peter  Lange,  Apostolisches  Zeitalter, 
1853-54. 

4.  The  criticism  of  the  school  of  Schleiermacher  also 
assumed  an  attitude  of  preponderating  hostility  to  the 
Tubingen  criticism.  For  example,  Friedr.  Bleck,  who  took 
an  advanced  part  in  the  discussion  so  early  as  1846,  in  his 
Seitrdge  zur  Evangelienkritik,  and  de  Wette  in  the  fifth 
edition  of  his  Introduction  (1848)  -1  It  was  Heinrich  Etoald 
who  in  his  Jahrbiicher  der  bibl.  Wissenschaft  (Gottingen, 
1849-65)  was  foremost  in  carrying  on,  with  roughest 
polemic,  the  struggle  against  the  Tubingen  school ;  while, 
in  essential  adherence  to  the  standpoint  of  the  criticism  of 
Schleiermacher,  though  sometimes  recalling  the  old  times 
of  the  hypothesis -criticism,  he  lays  down  in  numerous 


1  A  sixth  edition  was  edited  after  his  death,  by  Messner  and  Lunemann. 
Bleek's  Kinl.  in  dot  N.  T.  was  published  after  the  author's  death,  by  his 
son  Berlin,  1862.  Comp.  also  the  Itibelurkunden,  published  in  Bunsen'a 
Bilehcerk  (vol.  viii.  2),  by  Holtzmann  (Theil  4,  Lie  Bftcher  det  neuen 
Lundei,  Leipzig,  1866). 


THE   TUBINGEN   SCHOOL  AND  ITS   OPPONENTS.       17 

historical  and  exegetical  works  his  own  views  respecting 
the  origin  of  the  N.  T.  books  and  the  Canon.3  Closely 
following  him  in  every  respect,  but  with  his  accnstomed 
sobriety  and  scientific  objectivity  cutting  away  all  excres- 
cences of  Ewald's  subjective  criticism,  maintaining  even  the 
genuineness  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  H.  A.  W. 
Meyer,  in  the  Introductions  to  the  separate  parts  of  his 
Kritisch-exegetischen  Kommentar  iiber  das  N.T.,  disputes  on 
every  occasion  the  views  of  the  Tubingen  school,  along  with 
his  fellow-workers,  Liinemann,  Diisterdieck,  and  Huther, 
the  last  of  whom  even  defended  the  Pastoral  Epistles  that 
had  been  given  up  by  Meyer.  Ed.  Reuss  took  up  a 
thoroughly  independent  position,  a  scholar  who  though 
allied  to  the  Tubingen  school  in  many  respects  in  his 
fundamental  views,  yet  decidedly  rejected  the  proper 
tendency-criticism,  especially  in  the  Gospels,  and  arrived 
at  much  more  positive  results  than  the  Tubingen  school, 
in  relation  to  the  origin  of  the  separate  books.3  In  many 

*  The  sixth  vol.  of  his  History  of  Israel  contains  the  history  of  the 
apostolic  period  (Gott.,  1858,  3  Aufl.,  1868),  the  seventh  vol.  contains  that 
of  the  post-apostolic  period  (1859,  2  Aufl.,  1869)  in  the  appendix  to 
which  is  a  history  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  Canons.  His  works 
upon  the  Synoptical  Gospels  (1850)  extended  in  a  second  edition  to  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  (Die  drei  Ersten  Evangelien  und  die  Apostelgeschichte, 
Gottingen,  1871-72).  The  Johannine  writings,  translated  and  explained 
(Gottingen,  1861-62),  contain  in  the  first  part  the  Gospel  and  Epistles,  in 
the  second  the  Apocalypse,  which  he  does  not  assign  to  the  Apostle.  In 
his  Sendtchreiben  des  Apostel  Paulus  (Gottingen,  1857),  the  only  letters 
of  the  captivity  explained  are  Philippians,  Colossians,  Philemon.  Das 
Sendschreiben  an  die  Hebraer  und  der  Jakobus  Rundschreiben  and  Sieben 
Sendschreiben  des  neuen  Bundes  (die  Brief e  Petri  und  Judce,  Epheser  und 
Pasloralbriefe)  did  not  follow  till  the  year  1870. 

3  His  Geschichte  der  heiligen  Schriften  N.  2V*  (Braunschweig,  1842) 
which  more  than  doubled  in  extent  after  the  2nd  edition  (1853),  and 
appeared  in  a  5th  edition  in  1874,  is  a  first  attempt,  following  the  idea 
of  Credner's  plan,  to  present  the  collected  material  of  the  science  of 
Introduction  in  an  organic  form  as  a  history  of  the  N.  T.  books,  their 
collection  for  ecclesiastical  use  (history  of  the  Canon),  their  preservation 
(history  of  the  text),  their  dissemination  (history  of  translations),  an  i 
their  use  in  theology  down  to  the  latest  time  (history  of  exegesis). 


18  INTRODUCTION. 

of  his  positions,  Reuss,  -who  even  adheres  to  the  genuineness 
of  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  has  become  more  sceptical  in  the 
course  of  time.  The  contradiction  which  K.  Hase  (Die 
Tubinger  Schule,  Sendschreiben  an  D.  von  Baur,  Leipzig, 
1855)  opposed  to  the  Baurian  conception  of  the  apostolic 
period,  was  much  more  decided.  But  the  most  important 
event  in  the  history  of  the  contest  with  the  Tubingen  school 
was  Alb.  RitscM's  definite  breaking  away  from  the  views 
of  the  Tubingen  school  in  the  second  edition  of  his  Ent- 
stehung  der  alt,  katholischen  Kirche  (Bonn,  1857),  in  which  he 
presented  in  opposition  to  it  an  independent  conception  of 
the  development  of  primitive  Christianity,  allowing  room  for 
a  much  more  impartial  estimate  of  the  traditional  memorials 
of  the  apostolic  age. 


§  4.    PRESENT  STATE  OF  THE  SCIENCE. 

With  the  close  of  the  year  1850  the  elder  representatives 
of  the  Tubingen  school  came  virtually  to  an  end.  Adolf 
Hilgenfeld,  Baur's  most  assiduous  disciple,  now  came  to  the 
front,  and  in  1858,  in  his  Zeitschrift  fur  wissenschaftlicJie 
Theologie,  took  up  the  inheritance  of  the  Theologische  Jahr- 
bucler,  where  with  indefatigable  zeal  he  followed  out  all 
the  phenomena  in  the  department  of  the  science  of  Intro- 
duction to  the  New  Testament.  After  a  series  of  works,  he 
expounded  his  fundamental  principles  in  a  volume  entitled 
Das  Urchristenthum  in  den  Hauptwendepunkten  seines  Ent- 
wickelungsganges  (Jena,  1855).  He  aimed  at  moderating  the 
contrast  between  Paulinism  and  primitive  apostolic  Jewish 
Christianity  which  formed  the  starting-point  of  Baur,  vindi- 

in  the  first  part,  as  in  Schweglor,  the  origin  of  the  Canonical  writings  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  of  those  which  for  a  time  laid  claim  to  eccle- 
siastical validity  with  and  beside  them,  appears  interwoven  with  the 
ln«tory  of  primitive  Christianity,  whose  literature  Reuss  purposes  to  give. 


PEE  SENT   STATE   OF   THE   SCIENCE.  19 

cated  the  literary  and  historical  character  of  his  own  criti- 
cism of  the  Gospels  as  opposed  to  the  determining  tendency- 
criticism,  and  went  much  farther  back  in  the  time  of  the 
separate  books.  By  his  defence  of  the  gennineness  of  Phile- 
mon, Philippians,  1  Thessalonians,  and  Romans  xv.  16,  as 
well  as  of  the  tradition  respecting  the  end  of  Peter,  he 
sought  to  cut  away  the  most  prominent  excrescences  of  the 
Tubingen  criticism,  and  thus  visibly  strengthened  his  posi- 
tion (comp.  also  in  particular  Der  Kanon  und  die  Kritik  des 
N.  T.,  Halle,  1863;  Histor.  Jerit.  Einleitung  in  das  N.  T., 
Leipz.,  1875).  In  these  respects  Carl  Eolsten,  the  ablest 
and  most  acute  disciple  of  Baur,  has  remained  more  faithful 
to  his  teacher.  After  collecting,  enlarging  and  publishing 
his  works  belonging  to  the  years  1855,  59,  61  (Zum  Evang. 
des  Petrus  u.  Paulus,  Rostock,  1868)  he  applied  himself  to 
a  comprehensive  exegetical  exposition  of  his  conception  of 
Paul  and  his  relation  to  the  primitive  apostles  (Das  Evan- 
gelium  des  Paulus,  Berlin,  1880;  comp.  also  Die  drei  Ur- 
sprunglichen  noch  ungesehriebenen  Evang.,  Leipzig,  1883). 
In  his  earlier  works,  however,  we  find  growing  evidence  of  a 
modification  of  Baur's  principles  still  more  incisive  than  that 
of  Hilgenfeld.  According  to  him  the  original  standpoint  of 
Peter  is  essentially  allied  to  that  of  Paul,  and  only  after,  the 
conflict  at  Antioch  did  the  Judaistic  gospel  gain  supremacy 
in  the  primitive  apostolic  circle,  giving  rise  to  the  bitter 
opposition  of  the  former  apostle  to  the  latter.  On  the 
other  hand,  Gustav.  Volkmar,  who,  after  several  other  works, 
took  part  in  carrying  out  the  fundamental  views  of  Baur  by 
his  Religion  Jesu  (Leipz.,  1857 ;  comp.  also  Die  geschichts- 
treue  TTieologie,  Zurich,  1858),  devoting  himself  especially 
to  a  careful  examination  of  the  apocryphal  and  apocalyptic 
literature  (comp.  Die  Apoltalypse,  Zurich,  1860),  went  be- 
yond the  criticism  of  Baur  in  daring,  and  placed  many  of 
the  N".  T.  writings  lower  down  in  the  second  century  (Jesus 
Nazarenus,  Zurich,  1882 ;  comp.  also  Die  Bomerbrief ; 


20  INTRODUCTION. 

Zurich,  1875),  although  by  putting  Mark  first  he  completely 
shattered  the  Tubingen  theory  of  the  Gospels,  already  aban- 
doned by  Hilg.  and  Hoist.  {Marcus  und  die  Synopsis,  Leipz., 
1870)  .1 

2.  But  many  results  of  the  Tubingen  criticism,  as  well  as 
the  whole  method  of  its  investigation  and  many  of  its  pre- 
mises, are  by  no  means  limited  at  present  to  the  circle  of 
those  who  call  themselves  the  disciples  of  Banr  in  a  stricter 
sense,  but  are  widely  spread  among  the  modern  critical 
school.  It  is  true  that  the  historical  picture  of  the  apostolic 
and  post-apostolic  times  up  to  the  development  of  the 
Catholic  Church  as  it  appears  at  the  end  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, having  already  undergone  many  modifications  in  the 
Tubingen  school  itself,  although  a  new  one  adopted  in  wider 
circles  had  not  yet  taken  its  place,  may  be  regarded  as 
essentially  abandoned.  The  following  positions  may  be 
taken  for  granted  as  results  of  the  modern  school  of  criti- 
cism :  that  above  and  beyond  the  difference  between  Paul 
and  the  primitive  apostles,  however  it  may  be  formulated, 
there  existed  at  first  a  wide  basis  of  common  Christianity, 
that  had  not  been  shaken  in  the  apostolic  era  even  by  the 
conflict  of  extreme  tendencies ;  that  the  development  of 
the  post-apostolic  period  is  not  conditioned  by  compromise 
between  victorious  Judaistic  Christianity,  and  Paulinism  that 
could  only  with  difficulty  and  by  concession  hold  its  own 
against  it,  but  by  a  reformation  taking  place  within  Panlin- 
ifim  itself  or  by  a  new  independent  development  in  Gentile- 
Christian  circles,  resulting  from  the  operation  of  factors 

1  The  results  of  the  Tubingen  school  have  been  adopted  abroad  chiefly 
by  the  Dutchman  Scholten  (Hist.-krit.  Einl.  in  di*  Sehr.  d.  N.  T.,  1853, 
2te  Aufl.,  Leyden,  185G),  soon  after  surpassed  by  Pierson  and  Lomann 
in  a  radicalism  reminding  us  of  Bruno  Bauer ;  as  also  with  modifications 
by  the  Englishman  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson  (An  Introduction  to  the  Study 
of  the  New  Testament,  1808,  2nd  ed.  1882) ;  and  by  the  Frenchman  E. 
Renan  (Hittoire  det  origin**  du  chrutianitme,  Paris,  1863-82),  the  last 
indred  going  far  beyond  them. 


PBESENT  STATE   OF  THE   SCIENCE.  21 

other  than  Jewish  Christianity.  But  predilection  may  still 
find  the  influence  of  Alexandrianism  in  many  of  the  N.  T. 
books,  though  fixing  them  at  an  earlier  date  and  no  longer 
seeking  in  them  tendencies  to  union  but  solely  evidences  of 
the  later  phases  of  the  development  of  Christianity.  The 
circle  of  writings  accepted  as  genuinely  Pauline  is  not  essen- 
tially extended  beyond  that  already  conceded  by  Hilgenfeld, 
even  if  we  admit  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  has 
in  some  parts  a  genuine  foundation.  The  distrust  of  the 
Catholic  Epistles,  which  was  already  confirmed  in  the  view 
taken  by  de  Wette,  has  been  strengthened  more  and  more  into 
their  definite  expulsion  from  the  apostolic  age  (comp.  even 
Harnack:  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte,  Freiburg,  1885), 
and  recently  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  has  for  the  most 
part  shared  their  fate.  The  criticism  of  the  Gospels  has 
essentially  gained  by  having  the  ban  of  the  Tendenz  taken 
from  it ;  but  the  modern  critical  school,  in  its  decided  rejec- 
tion of  the  apostolicity  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  recognises  an 
indispensable  monument  of  what  it  still  regards  as  historical 
criticism.  In  its  interest  Theodor  Keim,  who,  however, 
adopted  a  thoroughly  mediating  position  in  the  question  of 
the  apostolic  council  (Aus  dem  Urchristenthum,  Zurich,  1878), 
and  Daniel  Schenkel,  who,  in  his  Christusbild  der  Apostel 
(Leipzig,  1879),  departed  very  considerably  from  many  of 
the  views  current  in  the  Tubingen  school,  gave  up  the  entire 
tradition  respecting  the  Apostle  John's  activity  in  Asia 
Minor.  The  standpoint  of  the  modern  critical  school  is 
especially  represented  by  Otto  Pfleiderer,  who  has  however  in 
his  Paulinismus  (Leipzig,  1883),  as  well  as  in  later  works 
upon  the  apostolic  council  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
essentially  modified  the  sentence  of  condemnation  pronounced 
by  the  Tubingen  school  on  the  historical  character  of  the 
Acts ;  by  Adolf  Hausrath,  in  his  NTlichen  Zeitgeschichte 
(Heidelberg,  1868-73,  2te  Aufl.,  73-77) ;  by  Immer  (Theo- 
logie  des  N.  T.,  Bern,  1877) ;  and,  above  all,  by  J3".  Julius 


22  INTRODUCTION. 

Holtzmann,  who  has  given  a  most  instructive  picture  of  the 
far-reaching  scepticism  to  which  this  school  leads,  in  his 
Lehrbuch  der  histor.  lent.  Einl.  in  das  N.  T.  (Freiburg,  1885), 
after  publishing  numerous  separate  works  on  the  Synoptical 
Gospels,  on  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians, 
the  Pastoral  Epistles,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  the 
Johannine  letters.  But  Wittichen,  Lipsius,  Overbeck,  Paul 
Schmidt,  "W.  Bruckner,  Seuffert,  and  others  also  belong  to 
this  school.  Besides  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschrift,  we  have  the 
Jahrbiicher  fur  protestantische  Theologie,  begun  in  1875,  in 
which  the  labours  of  this  school  are  collected.  Among  them 
the  labours  of  von  Soden  are  pre  eminent  in  acuteness,  in- 
dependence, and  comprehensive  mastery  of  material.  Comp. 
also  Schenkel's  Bibellexicon,  5  vols.,  Leipzig,  1869—75. 

3.  Carl  Weizsacker,  who  succeeded  Baur  in  Tubingen, 
assumed  a  position  of  more  marked  antagonism  to  the 
Tubingen  school  (Untersuchungen  iiber  d.  evang.  Gesch., 
Gotha,  1864 ;  comp.  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theol.,  1876)  ;  while 
Wilh.  Mangold  (in  his  Bearbeitung  des  3te  Aufl.  v.  Bleek's  Einl., 
1875,  4te  Aufl.,  1886)  attached  himself  more  closely  to 
Ritschl's  construction  of  history.  Yet  the  limits  that  sepa- 
rate the  theology  which,  though  occupied  with  the  same 
scientific  materials  as  the  critical  school,  is  more  apologetic 
in  character,  are  very  fluctuating;  for  while  the  former  did  at 
least  accept  an  indirect  Johannine  origin  of  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel, the  latter  has  assumed  an  attitude  of  complete  scepticism 
with  regard  to  it,  and  in  its  latest  development  has  come 
nearer  the  critical  school  with  respect  also  to  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  Willibald  Beyschlag,  who  was  attached  in  many 
ways  to  the  criticism  of  Schleiermacher  and  de  Wette,  has 
very  strongly  opposed  the  Tubingen  school  in  different  works 
on  Paul  and  his  opponents,  as  well  as  on  the  Gospels.  The 
works  of  Wittib.  Grimm  and  Klopfer,  as  well  as  others  whose 
rallying-point  is  the  Jahrbiicher  fur  deutsche  Theologie  (Stutt- 
gart, 1857-79),  occupy  a  position  almost  similar  to  his. 


PRESENT   STATE   OP   THE    SCIENCE.  23 

Comp.  also  A.  Riehtn,  SandworterbucJi  des  bibl.  Alterthuins, 
Bielefeld  and  Leipzig,  1873-84.  Bernhard  Weiss,  who  first 
appeared  in  print  with  his  Petrin.  Lehrbegriff  (Berlin,  1855), 
and  then  directed  his  attention  chiefly  to  the  criticism  of  the 
Gospels,  in  the  course  of  his  minute,  exegetical,  critical  and 
biblico-theological  works  respecting  modern  criticism  as  a 
whole,  arrived  mainly  at  conservative  results,  as  was  also 
the  case  with  others  who  revised  Meyer's  Commentary,  and 
finally  with  the  authors  of  articles  on  the  N".  T.  in  the  Real- 
encyklopddie  fur  protest.  Theologie  und  Kirche,  published  by 
Herzog  and  Plitt  (2te  Aufl.,  Leipzig,  1877-86).  On  the 
other  hand  certain  positions  or  arguments  of  the  modern 
critical  school  might  be  refuted  from  the  old  dogmatic  stand- 
point from  which  the  Canon  as  such  was  looked  upon  as 
inspired ;  but  this  would  be  unprofitable,  since  they  had 
no  scientific  basis  in  common.  Comp.  the  new  editions  of 
Guericke's  Einleitung  (Leipzig,  1853,  1868),  which  appeared 
with  the  somewhat  pretentious  title,  Gesammtgeschichte  des 
N.  T.,  oder  NTliche  Isagogik,  the  Commentaries  of  Keil, 
and  the  sketch  of  N.  T.  Introduction  by  L.  Schultze  in 
Zoeckler's  Handbuch  der  theol.  Wissenschaften,  Bd.  1,  Nord- 
lingen,  1883,  2te  Aufl.  1885.  /.  Chr.  R.  von  Hofmann  has 
indeed  attempted  to  set  forth  in  a  new  form  the  traditional 
Canon  as  the  organic  substance  of  Scripture,  which  being 
a  complete  memorial  of  the  beginning  of  Christianity  and 
an  all-sufficient  index  to  the  period  between  the  beginning 
and  the  end  of  its  history,  in  the  indispensableness  of 
its  individual  parts  is  a  guarantee  for  their  genuineness.1 

1  Hofmann  began  his  labours  on  Introduction  in  1854  with  treatises 
upon  the  history  of  the  origin  of  Holy  Scripture,  in  the  Erlangen  Zeit- 
schriftfiir  Protestantismus  und  Kirche  (neue  Folge,  Bd.  28 — Bd.  40),  and 
then  endeavoured  to  create  an  exegetical  substructure  for  them  in  his 
great  Bibelwerk,  Die  Heilige  Schrift  N.  T.'s,  Nordlingen,  whicn  appeared 
from  1862  onward,  and  which  he  was  able  to  complete  up  to  the  Gospels 
of  Matthew  and  Mark,  the  Acts  and  the  Johannine  writings.  A  condens- 
ation of  his  results  respecting  the  separate  books  of  the  New  Testament 


24  INTRODUCTION. 

But  as  that  fundamental  view  set  out  with  the  traditional 
ideas  respecting  the  origin  of  the  Canon  (even  to  the  Pauline 
authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews),  and  in  defending 
them  against  all  criticism  never  got  beyond  an  unprofitable 
polemic,  nothing  but  a  very  subjective  mode  of  reasoning 
could  be  employed  in  carrying  them  out.  This  put  a  self- 
constructed  history  of  salvation  in  place  of  actual  historical 
treatment.  Hofmann  left  behind  him  a  numerous  school  out 
of  which  the  works  of  Th.  Schott,  Luthardt,  Klostermann, 
and  others,  as  well  as  the  first  publications  of  Spitta  have 
proceeded.  In  particular,  his  successor  in  office,  Theod.  Zahn, 
in  Erlangen  has  begun  a  series  of  learned  Forschungen  zur 
Geschichte  des  NTlichen  Kanon  und  der  altkirchlichen  Liter- 
atur  (Erlangen,  1881,  83,  84).  From  the  same  school  also 
proceeds  the  Entwickelungsgeschich.  des  NTlichen  Schrift- 
tliums,  Giitersloh,  1871,  by  Rud.  Friedr.  Grau,  in  which  the 
organism  of  New  Testament  literature  is  set  forth  in  its 
development  according  to  the  stages  of  the  childhood,  youth, 
and  manhood  of  all  literature,  stages  which  are  characterized 
as  Epos,  Lyric,  and  Drama,  corresponding  to  the  declara- 
tory, epistolary,  and  prophetic  gradation  of  N.  T.  Scripture 
(Apocalypse,  Hebrews,  Gospel  of  John).  Here  we  have  no 
longer  to  do  with  scientific  research,  but  only  with  a  play  of 
fancy  applied  to  the  N.  T.  writings.8 

4.  Recently  there  has  also  been  much  contention  as  to  the 
true  problem  and  method  of  so-called  Introduction.  The 

was  published  after  his  death  by  W.  Volck  aa  Part  IX.  from  manuscripts 
and  lectures  (Nordlingen,  1881). 

8  Compare  also  Hertwig,  Tabellen  zur  Einl.  ins  N.  T.,  Berlin,  1F49, 
4.  Aufl.,  by  Weingarten,  1872.  The  numerous  and  in  many  respects 
learned  works  of  Catholics  upon  Introduction  have  not  been  drawn  into 
the  current  of  the  scientific  movement,  because  their  result  is  determined 
once  for  all  by  ecclesiastical  authority.  Compare  Adalbert  Maier,  Einl. 
in  die  Schriften  des  N.  T.,  Freiburg,  1852 ;  F.  X.  Eeithmayer,  Einl.  in  die 
kanonischen  Bilcher  des  N.  T.,  Regonsburg,  1882  ;  Jos.  Langen,  Grundriss 
der  Einl.  ins  N.  T.,  Bonn,  1868,  2.  Aufl.,  1873 ;  M.  von  Aberle,  Einl  in 
d.  N.  T.,  edited  by  P.  Schanz,  Freiburg,  1877. 


PBESENT   STATE   OF   THE   SCIENCE.  25 

older  science  of  Introduction  was  not  an  independent  subject 
born  of  one  fundamental  idea  and  carried  out  in  a  connected 
method,  but  a  science  auxiliary  to  exegesis,  to  which  it 
furnishes  the  means  for  a  right  understanding  of  the  New 
Testament  and  also  indirectly  for  dogmatic  also,  so  far  as  its 
aim  was  to  prove  that  it  had  its  basis  in  the  established 
Canon.  Hence  it  was  interwoven  in  its  origins  with  herme- 
neutics,  and  afterwards  with  the  history  and  criticism  of  the 
text  in  particular,  always  with  doctrinal  investigations  of 
inspiration,  canonicity,  etc.  Schleiermacher  still  regarded  it 
as  a  motley  collection  of  prolegomena  intended  to  carry 
the  present  reader  back  to  the  standpoint  of  the  first  readers ; 
while  in  de  Wette's  view  it  was  a  mass  of  rudimentary  know- 
ledge, devoid  of  scientific  principle  or  coherence.  The  treat- 
ment of  this  subject  from  a  purely  historical  point  of  view, 
undertaken  by  Reuss  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of 
Hupfeld  and  Credner  (§  3,  4 ;  note  3),  has  the  great  advan- 
tage of  separating  it  from  all  that  is  not  open  to  examina- 
tion and  presentment  by  means  of  the  historico-critical 
method.1  But  the  attempt  to  turn  it  into  a  kind  of  literary 
history  of  primitive  Christianity,  from  which  the  history  of 
the  Canon  constructs  an  independent  whole,  whose  fate  is  then 
followed  up  in  the  history  of  the  text,  translation  and  inter- 
pretation of  the  !N"ew  Testament,  could  only  be  justified  if  we 
had  to  do,  to  a  much  greater  extent  than  is  the  case,  with  facts 
that  could  be  ascertained  from  sources  extraneous  to  those 
Scriptures  whose  origin  is  the  very  point  on  which  the  ques- 
tion turns.  Baur  is  perfectly  right  in  maintaining  that  in 
this  branch  of  the  subject  we  have  to  do,  in  the  first  place, 
with  a  series  of  writings  as  to  whose  origin  and  collection 
definite  ideas,  which  should  be  critically  tested,  are  assumed 

1  For  this  reason  I  deem  it  unsuitable  to  characterize  an  Introduction 
to  the  Now  Testament  as  historico-critical.  That  it  ought  to  be  so  is  a 
matter  of  course  ;  whether  or  not  it  actually  is  so  depends  on  its  method 
of  treatment. 


26  INTRODUCTION. 

a  priori.  It  cannot  be  laid  down  in  advance  how  far  this 
testing  leads  to  a  perfectly  certain  conclusion,  or  how  far  the 
current  idea,  in  case  it  be  proved  untenable,  can  be  replaced 
by  a  new  one  with  sufficient  safety.  We  must  be  satisfied 
in  many  cases  with  an  indication  of  the  point  up  to  which 
critical  research  can  advance  with  security,  whilst  a  history 
following  anticipated  results  will  always  be  characterized  by 
some  amount  of  uncertainty,  and  must  forfeit  its  claim 
to  a  critical  investigation  of  details.2  The  origin  of  the 
Canon  can  only  in  reality  be  represented  in  the  form  of  a 
history  imperfectly  searched  out  as  to  its  sources,  and  mast 
necessarily  be  first  investigated,  because  the  tradition  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  separate  books,  which  forms  the  starting- 
point  of  all  criticism  respecting  them,  can  only  be  rightly 
estimated  in  its  continuity.  It  is  a  mere  fiction  to  assume 
that  the  origin  of  the  individual  books  must  be  examined 
before  we  can  proceed  to  the  history  of  their  collection,  since 
in  the  latter  they  are  looked  at  not  in  the  light  in  which 
they  appear  as  the  result  of  criticism,  but  as  they  were 
viewed  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  Canon.  But  even 
the  history  of  the  origin  of  the  separate  books  may  be  treated 
from  an  essentially  historical  point  of  view,  without  giving 
up  our  adhesion  to  the  groups  of  writings  handed  down  in 
the  Canon.  The  very  circumstance  that  the  Pauline  epistles 
are  interwoven  with  the  life-history  of  the  great  Gentile 
apostle  leads,  as  a  matter  of  course,  to  the  discussion  of  all 
those  facts  in  the  history  of  the  apostolic  period  that  may 
still  be  determined  with  historical  accuracy,  and  which  form 
a  basis  for  the  criticism  of  the  other  N.  T.  books.  Hence 

*  Compare  recent  discussion  of  this  subject  bj  Hupfeld,  Ueber  Begriff 
und  Methode  der  togen.  libl.  Einl. ,  Marburg,  1844 ;  Rudelbach,  in 
d.  Zeittchr.  fiir  luth.  Theologie  und  Kirche,  1848 ;  Banr,  in  d.  Theol. 
Jahrb.,  1850,  61 ;  Ewald,  in  tbe  Jahrb.  der  bibl.  Wi*$.,  8.  1851,  4.  1852 ; 
Delitzsch,  in  d.  Zeittch.  ftir  Protestantisms  und  Kirche,  1854 ;  Holtz- 
mann,  Hupfeld  and  Riehm,  in  d.  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit,  1860,  61,  62 ; 
Zahn,  Realencyklop.  IV,  1879. 


PRESENT   STATE   OP   THE    SCIENCE.  27 

their  treatment  must  be  the  starting-point  in  what  goes  by 
the  name  of  special  Introduction.8 

3  The  fact  that  the  history  of  the  Text  is  usually  attached  to  the  his- 
tory of  the  Canon  has  a  good  reason  in  the  needs  of  academic  instruction  ; 
but  all  that  is  commonly  imparted  respecting  the  language  of  the  N.  T., 
the  preservation  of  the  Text,  the  manuscripts,  versions,  recensions,  and 
editions  of  the  Text,  has  no  internal  and  necessary  connection  with  the 
origin  of  the  Canon  and  its  constituent  parts,  and  must  he  definitely 
excluded  from  a  scientific  presentation  of  them  (comp.  Zahn,  as  before). 
The  history  of  translation  and  interpretation  in  its  widest  sense  can  be 
profitably  treated  only  in  connection  with  general  Church  history. 


FIRST    PART. 
HISTOKY  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

§  5.    THE  CANON  OF  THE  LORD'S  WORDS. 

1.  CHRIST  lias  left  no  written  record.  He  found  His  nation 
already  in  possession  of  a  collection  of  sacred  writings,  from 
which  it  drew  religions  knowledge  and  edification ;  and  He 
did  not  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets  (Matt.  v. 
17).  It  was  not  to  improve  or  supplement  their  doctrines 
or  precepts  that  He  came,  but  to  bring  the  joyful  message 
of  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  that  had  been  given  to  them, 
and  of  the  final  realization  of  their  religious  and  moral  ideal 
by  the  consummation  of  the  Divine  revelation  in  Him;  a  fact 
which  did  really  open  up  a  newer,  fuller  understanding  of 
Old  Testament  revelation.  By  the  revelation  of  Himself  in 
word  and  deed,  by  His  self -surrender  in  suffering  and  death, 
by  His  exaltation  and  the  sending  of  His  spirit,  He  founded 
the  kingdom  of  God,  and  gave  security  for  the  infallibly 
certain  development  of  its  aim.  For  this  object  a  written 
record  would  have  been  as  insufficient  as  it  was  superfluous.1 
In  order  to  continue  His  work  upon  earth,  He  only  needed 
witnesses  to  testify  what  they  had  seen  and  heard,  preachers 
of  the  message  of  salvation  manifested  in  Him,  who  could 
bear  witness  from  inmost  experience  that  He  was  the  promised 

1  The  letter  of  Christ  to  King  Abgarus  of  Edessa,  given  by  Ensebius, 
II.  E.,  1,  13,  ia  of  course  fictitious.  Jesus  was  certainly  far  from  making 
any  reflections  on  the  superiority  of  the  oral  to  the  written  word,  or  the 
dangers  of  bondage  to  the  letter,  and  such  like. 

M 


THE   CANON   OP   THE   LOED'S  WOEDS.  29 

One  in  whom  they  had  found  the  fulfilment  of  all  their 
longing  and  hope.  The  apostles  whom  Jesus  had  chosen 
and  trained  for  that  purpose  were  simple  men,  who  could 
have  felt  neither  inclination  nor  capacity  for  literary  work 
(comp.  Acts  iv.  13),  and  whom  He  had  certainly  chosen 
without  regard  to  later  written  productions.  Even  the 
culture  of  Paul,  who  was  called  afterwards,  was  on  a 
Scripture  basis.  It  did  not  consist  in  literary  skill,  but  in 
the  capability  of  understanding  and  using  0.  T,  Scripture. 
The  commission  was  one  of  oral  announcement.  The 
activity  of  the  Twelve,  which  for  a  long  period  was  limited 
to  Jerusalem,  and  when  further  extended  could  easily  be 
carried  on  in  person,  made  all  written  instruction  unneces- 
sary. Authorship  in  the  interest  of  later  generations  could 
not  occur  to  a  time  living  in  expectation  of  the  immediate 
return  of  the  Lord.  The  primitive  documents  of  the 
apostolic  time  are  concerned  throughout  only  with  the 
speaking  and  preaching  of  the  word,  with  its  hearing  and 
acceptance.2  Comp.  Rom.  x.  14,  17. 

2.  The  necessity  for  recourse  to  written  intervention  only 
made  itself  felt  when  Christianity  extended  to  wider  circles 
and  the  apostles  were  unable  to  be  always  present  when  the 
need  arose  for  instruction  in  matters  of  doctrine,  practice, 
or  the  Church ;  for  comfort,  strengthening,  and  exhortation. 
Hence  the  origin  of  epistolary  literature.1  But  even  these 

8  Only  to  a  later  time,  that  had  become  fonder  of  writing,  could  it 
occur  to  explain  this  on  the  assumption  that  they  were  so  taken  up  with 
the  work  of  teaching  and  of  preparation  for  it,  that  they  had  no  time  to 
spare  for  writing  (comp.  Eclog.  ex  script,  prophet.,  c.  27),  or  to  give  their 
want  of  literary  culture  as  a  reason  why  they  occupied  themselves  so 
little  with  the  writing  of  hooks  (comp.  Kuseb.,  H.  E.,  3,  24). 

1  Whether  Paul  was  the  founder  of  this  and  the  pattern  for  it,  as  is 
generally  supposed,  can  only  he  determined  from  the  history  of  the 
origin  of  the  separate  N.  T.  writings.  Paul  does  not  recognise  a  peculiar 
gift  for  writing  among  the  charisms  of  the  apostolic  period  ;  and  neither 
he  nor  the  New  Testament  knows  of  any  other  spiritual  gift  than  that 
which  all  Christians  have. 


30  ORIGIN   OP  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

letters,  all  of  which  seem  to  have  been  prompted  by  special 
occasions,  were  for  the  most  part  entrusted  to  particular  men 
whose  mission  it  was  to  supplement  and  enforce  the  written 
word  by  oral  speech.  The  sole  prophetic  book  of  the  New 
Testament  is  also  intentionally  clothed  in  an  epistolary  form, 
in  order  that  the  prophecy  might  give  consolation  and  admo- 
nition to  the  Churches  for  which  it  was  designed.  What  we 
know  of  the  origin  of  the  oldest  Gospels  points  to  the  substi- 
tution of  written  records  for  oral  preaching  which  had  become 
necessary  by  the  death  or  removal  of  the  apostles ;  while  the 
later  Gospels  give  direct  expression  to  the  didactic  and 
practical  object  for  which  they  were  designed  (Luke  i.  4; 
John  xx.  31).  In  any  case  the  gospel  literature  came  later 
than  the  epistolary.  Paul  knows  nothing  as  yet  of  written 
Gospels,  but  appeals  to  oral  tradition  (1  Cor.  xv.  3,  etc.). 
The  former,  like  the  letters,  were  certainly  intended  at  first 
for  a  smaller  circle  of  readers.  The  writings  of  Luke  are 
even  addressed  to  a  single  man  (Luke  i.  3;  Acts  i.  1).  The 
charge  given  by  Paul  in  his  first  epistle,  that  it  should  be 
read  to  all  the  brethren  (1  Thess.  v.  27),  could  only  be 
carried  out  at  a  meeting  of  the  Church ;  but  this  of  course 
was  something  quite  different  from  the  regular  reading  of 
Old  Testament  Scripture,  adopted  from  the  synagogue  by 
the  Gentile  Christian  Churches  in  their  meetings  for  worship. 
The  sole  object  in  this  case  was  that  the  letter  should  be 
made  known  to  the  whole  community  for  whom  it  was 
intended  (comp.  2  Cor.  i.  13).  For  the  same  reason  Paul 
gives  directions  on  another  occasion  that  two  neighbouring 
Churches  should  exchange  letters  after  they  had  first  been 
publicly  read  (Col.  iv.  16)  ;  from  which  it  follows  that  he 
had  no  thought  of  his  letters  habitually  gQing  beyond  the 
circle  of  those  to  whom  they  were  addressed.  Doubtless 
many  of  the  epistles,  in  particular  the  so-called  Catholic 
ones,  were  from  the  first  intended  for  a  wider  circle  of 
Churches,  and  were  therefore  copied  and  pretty  widely  circu- 


THE    CANON   OF   THE   LORD'S  WORDS,  31 

lated.  But  so  long  as  the  Churches  had  still  the  personal 
presence  of  the  apostles,  more  or  less  frequently,  there  was 
no  intention  to  spread  their  writings,  much  less  to  make 
a  collection  of  them.2 

3.  The  writers  of  the  apostolic  time,  like  Jesus  Himself, 
refer  to  the  Old  Testament  simply  as  the  Scripture.  That 
which  is  written  (yeypaTrrai,  yeyoa^ej'ov  eoriv),  or  what  the 
Scripture  says  (^  ypa^r)  Xeyet),  is  absolute  authority  as  such 
(comp.  Weiss,  Bibl.  Theol.  des  N.  T.'s,  4.  Ann.,  1884,  §  74). 
The  ground  of  this  is,  that  God  Himself  speaks,  who  by 
His  Spirit  put  His  word  into  the  mouth  of  prophets;  but 
it  is  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  that  first  cites  the  words 
of  Scripture  as  the  words  of  God,  even  where  the  Old 
Testament  does  not  so  characterize  them  (comp.  as  before, 
§  116,  c.).  What  Christ  said  naturally  takes  its  place  beside 
the  word  of  God  in  Scripture,  since  He  came  in  order  to 
complete  Old  Testament  revelation.  The  writings  of  the 
primitive  apostolic  circle  are  interwoven  with  allusions  to 
the  words  of  the  Old  Testament  as  the  words  of  the  Lord, 
without,  however,  the  latter  being  expressly  quoted  as  such, 
which  is  indeed  seldom  the  case  with  the  former.  There 
is  an  express  admonition  in  2  Pet.  iii.  2,  fivr]a-6rjvai  rlav 
T/jmarcji/  VTTO  ruiv  ctyt'wv  Trpo<f>rjru)V,  Kal  -njs  TO>I> 
v/xwv  evToAiJs  rov  nvpiov.  Paul  appeals  repeatedly 
to  the  words  of  the  Lord  for  his  statements  and  direc- 
tions; but  it  is  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  that  he  is 


3  The  fact  that  a  later  time,  which  traced  back  to  the  apostolic  age 
everything  that  had  become  sacred  to  it,  fixed  the  New  Testament  Canon 
by  John,  making  it  end  with  him  (Phot.  Bibl.  cod.  254),  is  just  as  con- 
ceivable as  it  is  wanting  in  all  historical  foundation.  So  Augusti 
thought,  Versuch  einer  hist.  dogm.  Einl.  in  d.  heil.  Schrift,  1832.  But 
Tisohendorf's  notion  thafc  the  Gospels,  the  Pauline  Epistles,  1  Pet.  and 
1  John  were  collected  into  the  Canon  as  early  as  the  end  of  the  first 
century  (Wann  wurden  unsere  Evangelien  verfasst?  Leipz.,  1865),  and 
Ewald's  hypothesis  of  a  collection  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  about  100, 
are  fictions  entirely  unhistorical. 


32          ORIGIN  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

first  made  to  quote  the  word  of  the  Lord  directly.1  Old 
Testament  Scripture  seems  also  to  be  the  chief  authority 
quoted  in  very  various  forms  throughout  the  only  extra- 
canonical  writing  which  certainly  belongs  to  the  first  cen- 
tury, the  Epistle  of  the  Roman  to  the  Corinthian  Church, 
the  so-called  first  Epistle  of  Clement,  where  however  refer- 
ence is  made  in  two  passages  to  the  words  of  the  Lord, 
after  the  manner  of  the  Acts ;  while  the  so-called  Epistle 
of  Barnabas  seems  to  introduce  a  similar  quotation  with 
the  simple  word  <f>rj<rt,  not  only  in  4,  14  (on  this,  however, 
compare  No.  6,  Note  1),  but  also  in  7,  11,  side  by  side  with 
frequent  citations  of  the  Old  Testament.3 

4.  It  is  certain  that  until  after  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  no  other  Canon  was  set  up  in  the  Church  than  the 

1  Already  in  1  Thess.  iv.  15  Paul  bases  a  prophecy  on  the  word  of 
the  Lord  (iv  \6ytp  mptov,  comp.  Matt.  xxiv.  31 ;  comp.  also  v.  2  with 
Matt,  xxxiv.  43),  the  summing  up  of  the  law  in  the  command  to  love 
one  another  he  characterizes  as  the  law  of  Christ  (Gal.  vi.  2),  and 
expressly  makes  a  distinction  between  his  own  directions  (vii.  12,  25) 
and  the  word  of  the  Lord  with  respect  to  divorce,  giving  the  meaning 
of  the  hitter  in  an  indirect  way  (1  Cor.  vii.  10;  comp.  Mark  z.  9). 
Speaking  of  the  right  of  the  preacher  of  the  gospel  to  be  supported  by 
the  Church,  founded  on  the  Old  Testament,  he  says  in  1  Cor.  ix.  14 : 
oSrus  teal  6  Kvptot  liira^ev,  for  which  reason  the  word  of  the  Lord  here 
referred  to,  Luke  z.  7,  may  also  be  directly  attached  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scripture  (1  Tim.  v.  18)  on  which  that  right  is  based.  Comp.  also 
the  words  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  supper,  1  Cor.  zi.  24  f. 
In  Acts  zx.  35,  in  the  farewell  discourse  at  Miletus,  we  are  first  told : 
inrt&ti3-a,  vfJ.lv,  Sri  .  .  .  del  .  .  .  (JLvrj^ovtvtiv  ruv  \6ywv  rov  ntptov  'Iijffov,  6rt 
oi/ris  diftv  naKdpibv  fffru>  /xaXXoi>  diSbvai  1)  Xaju/3<ireu>.  This  word  of  the 
Lord  has  not  been  preserved  in  our  written  Gospels,  nor  can  I  find  any 
reminiscence  of  it  in  the  passage  1  Clem,  ad  Corinth.  2, 1  (4}5tor  6id6rret  f) 
Xa/i/Sdcorres),  where  the  similarity  of  wording  is  conditioned  by  the  context. 

-  In  the  passage  1  Clem,  ad  Cor.  13,  1,  etc.,  we  read:  irot^ffuntf  r& 
ytypaij.iJ.tvov,  after  which  an  0.  T.  passage  is  introduced  with  the  words 
\t-yci  yiip  rb  TveO/xa  followed  by  /*dXt<rra  ^e/zj^.u^ot  rut  \byuv  TOV  Kvplov 
'Itjffov,  oOt  Admire*  d&ivKiav — otfrwf  yiip  elirtv,  and  Chap.  46,  7,  etc. : 
(jur/lffOifre  rZv  \&yuv  'Irj<rou  rot)  Kvplov  ijtiuv'  tire*  ydp.  Whether  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas  belongs  to  the  first  century,  is  indeed  very  doubtful ; 
but  it  must  at  least  be  the  oldest  monument  of  the  second  century  that 
hao  come  down  to  us. 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   LORD'S  WORDS.  33 

"Word  of  God,  i.e.  no  other  normal  authority  that  could  take 
its  place  beside  the  Word  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Though  not  expressly  put  forward  in  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas 
and  the  Ignatian  Epistles,  yet  in  Polycarp,  ad  Phil.  2,  3,  we 
find  words  of  the  Lord  introduced  with  the  same  formula  as 
in  1  Clem.  13.1  But  such  allusion  is  particularly  prominent 
in  the  Homily  commonly  called  the  Second  Epistle  of  Cle- 
ment to  the  Corinthians.  Here  again  we  find  continual  ex- 
hortation to  consider  and  fulfil  the  IvroXal  rov  Kvpiov  which 
are  introduced  by  Xe'yei  6  /cvpios.3  In  like  manner  the  re- 
cently discovered  AiSa^^  r<av  SwSe/ca.  aTToorToXtov  (comp.  Har- 
nack,  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  zur  Geschichte  der  altchrist* 
lichen  Literatur,  Bd.  II.  1,  2  ;  Leipzig,  1884),  expressly  calls 
itself  SiSax?/  Kvpiov  Sta  ru>v  a7rooToA.u>v.  Just  as  an  0.  T. 
passage  16,  7  is  introduced  by  the  words  u>s  cppeOij  (comp. 
14,  3),  so  in  9,  5  we  read,  irepl  TOVTOU  eipr/Kcv  6  /cvpios.  The 
whole  burden  of  the  work  is  an  exhortation  to  do  us  c/ceXevcrev 
6  KU/KOS  (8,  2).  Papias  of  Hierapolis  begins  by  writing  five 
books,  a  cTTtKaXctTat  AoyiW  KvpiaK&v  c&rjy-qcrcis  (Euseb.,  H.  E., 
39),  because  everything  depends  on  the  understanding  of 
these  regulating  words  of  the  Lord.  In  Justin  the  Martyr 
we  find  a  clear  enunciation  of  the  principle  that  the 
authority  of  Christ  stands  side  by  side  with  that  of  the 

1  That  the  passage  Herm.  Vis.  ii.  2,  8:   &(jt,o<rev  /ci/pcoj  xari  TOU  vlov 
airrov  rods  d.pvr)<ra./j.{vovs  rbv  K'upiov  OLVT&V  AwcyvvplffBat  diro  TT}J  £wfjs  avrtaf 
refers  to  Matt.  x.  33,  is  quite  improbable.    A  writing  professedly  apoca- 
lyptic had,  moreover,  less  motive  for  such  appeal  to  the  words  of  the 
Lord,  and  with  the  exception  of  the  obscure  c&j  ytypairrcu  tv  T$  'EX545 
KO.I  MwSdr  (Vis.  ii.  3,  4)  it  contains  indeed  no  O.  T.  citations.    In  Ign.  ad 
Smyrn.  3,  2,  an  utterance  of  Christ  is  referred  to  only  in  an  historical 
way  ;  but  on  the  other  hand  we  read  in  Pol.  2,  3  :  nw]fj.ove6ovTes  3>v  tlirev 
6  KI//MOS  SiSdaKuv,  comp.  also  7,  2 :  jcad&s  elirev  6  nvpios,  which  explains 
also  8s  &v  pedoSetj-g  TO.  \oyta  rod  Kvpiov,  etc.  (7,  1). 

2  In  2  Clement  17,  3,  we  read  :  fjun)fj.oi>e6<a/jiev  TUV  rov  Kvpiov  fvTa\fj.a.Tuv 
— ireip&(jt,eQa  irpoK6irTfu>  iv  rcus  tvroXais  TOV  Kvptov,  which  by  their  con- 
nection with  8,  4 ;  6,  7 ;  8,  4  are  without  doubt    the  commands  of 
Christ.     Comp.  the  frequent  citations  beginning  with  elwtv  6  KI//HOS  (4,  5  ; 
9,  11),  \cyei  6  Kvpios  (5,  2  ;  6,  1)  and  suchlike. 


34  ORIGIN   OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

prophetic  word.3  Hegesippus,  too,  makes  it  the  criterion  of 
orthodoxy  that  everything  should  be  so  regulated,  o>s  6  vo/uos 
Krjpv<r(rfi  Kal  ol  irpo<f>t)Tcu  *cal  6  KI'/XO?  (Euseb.,  H.  E.,  4,  22),  in 
accordance  with  the  word  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of 
Christ  (comp.  Steph  Gobar.  in  Phot.  BibL,  232,  p.  288  :—rS>v 
T€  6ci<av  ypa<£oiv  Kal  TOV  Kvpiov  Aeyoyros).  Just  in  proportion 
as  the  Church  of  the  second  century  was  accustomed  to 
regard  Christianity  as  a  new  law  on  the  observance  of  which 
salvation  depended,  was  it  natural  for  it  to  look  on  the 
words  of  the  Lord  especially  the  commands  regulating  the 
life  of  the  Christian,  as  its  guiding  principle.  In  any  case 
the  want  of  a  proper  guide  was  by  no  means  felt  so  long  as 
men  were  satisfied  with  the  simplest  elements  of  evangelical 
preaching,  and  assumed  their  common  possession  to  be  a 
thing  intelligible  of  itself. 

5.  Our  written  Gospels  were  by  no  means  the  exclusive, 
or  even  the  principal  source  from  which  these  regulating 
words  of  the  Lord  were  drawn.  It  is  certain  that  they  are 
not  the  source  from  which  Paul's  references  are  drawn ;  and 
Papias  in  looking  after  ras  irapa  rov  Kvpiov  -rg  Trio-ret  ScSo/xeVas 
evroAas  fJLVTjfJLOvevovTfs,  is  of  opinion  ov  ra  ex  T£>V  /JiySAtW  TOO-- 
OVTOV  <5^>e\€iv,  ocrov  TO.  irapa  ^ciai/s  <fHavrj<;  *ai  /levovoTjs  (Euseb., 
H.  E.,  3,39).  In  his  time  there  was  still,  therefore,  a  living 
oral  tradition  respecting  these  words  of  the  Lord.  Hence  in 
Barnabas  (7,  11),  Ignatius  (ad  Smyrn.  3),  2  Clement  (12, 
2,  ff.)>  as  well  as  in  Acts  xx.  35,  we  find  words  of  the  Lord 

*  Thus  we  read  in  Apol.  i.  6  :  (9«6f)  Kal  TOV  rap  ouroC  vlo»  iXffjrra  (cat 
5toa£a»ra  i7,uaj  raCra — VKV/JM  re  TO  irpo<pT)TiKbi>  fft/3&fuOa  ical  vpoffKvvoviin  ; 
comp.  1,  13 :  TOV  SidafficaXov — 'Iti<rovv  X/M<rr6r — 1»  SevrlpQ  \u>p<f  fx°"r(t, 
irveO/u*  re  Trpo^TiKov  ii>  rplrjj  ra£et.  The  Christians  are  paObrrtt  ra/>d 
rov  X/MoroD  Kal  TUV  rpot\06rrwv  avrou  TpoQyruv  (i.  23).  In  Dial.  48 
we  read:  OVK  AvOpwiriloit  SiSdyncurt  KtKt\euffft.e0a  far'  aiVoO  TOV  X/MCTTOU 
rciffeffOai,  dXXd  rotf  did  rd-r  fJutKapiur  -rpcxprjTvv  KijpvxjSelfft.  Kal  61  afrrov 
6i5ax9e~ffi,  comp.  Dial.  139  :  tyvuKortt  rf>i>  tr  TOIJ  \6yoit  afrrov  Kcd  TWV 
wpo<f>ifruf  avTov  d\^0tica>.  Bat  we  shall  have  to  speak  of  Justin  more 
fully  in  another  connection  (§  7),  and  only  mention  him  here,  inasmuch 
as  this  oldest  Canon  of  the  Church  finds  expression  in  him  also. 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   LOKD'S   WOEDS.  35 

that  are  preserved  nowhere  else,  or,  though  met  with  in 
heretical  Gospels  whose  origin  and  age  we  do  not  know, 
cannot  in  any  case  have  been  taken  from  our  Gospels.  The 
fact  of  quotation  from  memory  may  always  serve  to  explain 
many  deviations,  while  much  confusion  of  memory  is  doubt- 
less due  to  the  similarity  of  the  Gospel  parallels  ;  but  the 
great  arbitrariness  in  reproducing,  mixing  and  connecting 
the  words  of  the  Lord  at  this  time,  can  only  be  explained  by 
the  manifold  variations  in  which  oral  tradition  was  still  ac- 
customed to  reproduce  them.  Thus  the  two  oldest  citations 
in  Clement  are  thrown  together  out  of  entirely  different 
words  of  the  Lord,  scarcely  one  of  which  is  in  complete 
agreement  with  passages  in  the  Gospels.1  Fabulous  adorn- 
ment  of  the  narrative  respecting  the  star  that  appeai-ed  to 
the  wise  men,  such  as  we  meet  with  in  Ignatius  (ad  Eph.  19), 
certainly  presupposes  no  evangelical  source ;  and  when  Eu- 
sebius  (H.  J?.,  3, 39)  found  the  history  of  the  great  adulteress, 
narrated  by  Papias,  in  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews, 
it  does  not  by  any  means  follow  that  he  borrowed  it  from 
this.  In  the  second  Epistle  of  Clement,  5,  2,  if.,  two  quite 
distinct  utterances  of  Christ  are  transformed  and  brought 
into  connection  by  an  intervening  question  of  Peter,  while 
the  citation  4,  5  is  so  freely  handled  as  to  be  almost  unre- 
cognisable.2 The  Didache,  too,  indulges  in  the  most  won- 

1  The  view  that  such  words  must  therefore  proceed  from  uncanonical 
Gospels,  finds  no  support  even  in  the  fact  that  similar  combinations  and 
modes  of  expression  recur  in  other  authors,  sinee  they  may  equally  be 
explained  from  stereotyped  forms  of  transmission  or  from  the  dependence 
of  one  author  on  another.    Hence  the  relative  similarity  of  citations  in 
Polyc.  2,  3  and  1  Clein.  13,  2,  may  doubtless  be  explained  on  the  as- 
sumption that  the  author  of  Polycarp's  Epistle  was  acquainted  with  the 
Epistle  of  Clement,  as  the  very  introductory  formula  shows. 

2  Quite  in  a  similar  way  Luke  has  often  enough  united  by  means  of 
questions  of  transition,  words  and  series  of  words  lying  before  him  in  his 
sources.    But  here  a  prophecy  is  made  hi  5,  2,  taken  solely  from  Luke 
x.  3;  and  in  5,  4  the  passage  Luke  xii.  4  f.,  with  the  meaning  of  which 
Matthew  also  agrees,  has  a  reminiscence  of  the  former  simile.    More- 
over, the  question  of  Peter  may  be  explained  as  a  reference  to  Matt.  xx\  i. 


36  ORIGIN   OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

derful  mixings  and  combinations  of  the  words  of  the  Lord 
(1,  3 ;  1,  4,  etc. ;  16,  1),  and  at  the  very  outset  gives  a 
negative  interpretation  to  Matt.  vii.  12,  which  though  it 
misses  the  germ  of  the  thought  of  Christ,  was  popularly 
current  among  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Chap.  2-5  consists  almost 
as  exclusively  of  words  taken  from  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas, 
as  Chap.  1  of  evangelical  utterances,  the  Didache  assuming 
without  question  that  the  work  in  its  series  of  exhortations 
contained  the  Lord's  words  orally  transmitted  and  freely 
shaped,  but  still  transmitted  in  their  essence.  This  view, 
indeed,  is  by  no  means  without  some  foundation  where  many 
of  the  sayings  of  Barnabas  are  concerned,  as  well  as  those  of 
Clement  and  Hennas,  even  where  they  do  not  profess  to  be 
the  Lord's  words. 

6.  After  all  that  has  been  said,  there  can  be  no  thought  of 
a  Canon  of  the  Gospels,  i.e.  of  a  closed  collection  of  evan- 
gelical books  equal  to  those  of  the  Old  Testament  in  conse- 
quence and  import.  Moreover  the  o>s  yrypaTrTcu  in  Barn.  4, 
14  cannot  possibly  prove  the  canonical  validity  of  the  Gospel 
of  Matthew;  and  it  is  highly  improbable  that  even  in  2  Clem. 
2,  4  the  Gospels  are  considered  as  ypa$r).1  Nor  do  the  Ig- 


31, 33.  And  4,  5  is  only  a  very  free  transformation  of  the  utterance  con- 
tained in  Lake  xiii.  26  f.  which  from  the  individual  case  here  pat 
(tQdyonev  Ivuvibv  trov  ical  (trlofifv),  rises  to  the  universal  proposition,  that 
even  the  closest  union  with  Christ  (per'  cfj.ou  ffvnjyufroi  if  rtf  x6\ry  /xou) 
is  no  protection  against  being  cast  away. 

1  If  Barnabas  does  actually  contain  a  reference  to  Matt.  zzii.  14,  the 
ut  ytypawTai  can  only  prove  a  canonical  validity  of  this  word  of  the 
Lord  equivalent  to  that  of  Old  Testament  Scripture,  but  not  to  that  of 
the  work  from  which  it  is  borrowed,  especially  since  the  saying  is  not 
quoted  at  all  but  only  interwoven  in  the  context :  r/xxr^xw/to'  njirorc, 
wi  yfypavTai,  roXXoi  K\rjTol,  6\iyoi  Si  iK\eicroi  evpeOwfiev.  But  it  is  just 
as  likely  that  the  author,  who  quotes  from  memory,  was  in  error 
in  supposing  the  saying  to  be  taken  from  0.  T.  Scripture;  for  it  is 
most  improbable  that  the  reference  is  to  4  Esdr.  viii.  3.  We  can  scarcely 
doubt  that  this  is  the  case  in  2  Clem.  2,  4,  where  the  passage  Matt. 
ix.  13  is  introduced  by  xoi  Mpa.  6}  ypa<f>^  Xfyet  and  the  connection 
with  2,  5  f.  shows  that  this  is  looked  upon  as  a  word  of  God  that 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   LORD'S  WORDS.  37 

natian  epistles  contain  any  reference  to  written  Gospels,  but 
TO  €vayye\.iov  after  the  manner  of  the  New  Testament  points 
to  the  oral  preaching  of  the  Apostles,  as  in  1  Clem.  47,  2  ; 
Barn.  5,  9,  of  which  Poly  carp  (ad  Phil.  6,  3),  as  well  as 
1  Clem.  42,  1  ;  Barn.  8,  3,  uses  the  term  evayycAt^eo-flai.1  Pa- 
pias  of  Hierapolis  is  the  first  to  speak  of  books  (/?i/3A.ia),  from 
which  the  commands  of  the  Lord  may  be  known,  and  tells  how 
Mark  TO.  vrrb  TOV  X/HOTOU  17  XexQevra  f)  Trpa^Oevra.  aK/3i/3ws  eypa- 


only  found  its  fulfilment  in  Christ.  13,  4  is  also  a  sentence  formed  out 
of  Luke  vi.  27,  32,  and  quoted  as  a  word  of  God,  i.e.  as  an  0.  T. 
saying,  as  well  as  15,  3.  On  the  contrary  it  seems  to  me  that  2  Clem. 
3,  5  ascribes  to  Christ  Himself  the  saying  from  Isaiah  employed  by 
him  in  Matt.  xv.  8  ;  and  the  designation  of  O.  T.  quotations  as  words 
of  the  Lord  (13,  2  ;  17,  4)  may  rest  upon  such  interchange.  Also  in 
Barnabas  7,  11  (comp.  No.  5)  an  interchange  with  Acts  xiv.  22  is 
not  excluded.  But  even  in  one  like  Justin,  who  was  much  better  ac- 
quainted with  Scripture,  not  only  do  frequent  interchanges  occur  of  the 
prophets  quoted  (Apol.  i.,  35,  51,  53  ;  Dial.  14,  49),  but  also  intermix- 
ture of  the  words  of  the  Lord  in  0.  T.  citations  (Apol.  L,  48  ;  Isa.  xxxv. 
4  ff.  ;  comp.  Matt.  xi.  5  ;  i.  51  ;  Dan.  vii.  13,  comp.  Matt.  xxv.  31), 
and  in  the  midst  of  a  series  of  the  Lord's  words,  Dial.  35,  a  sentence 
is  inserted  which  can  only  arise  arise  out  of  a  reminiscence  of  1  Cor. 
xi.  18  f.  (fffovrai.  ayl<n>.a.Ta.  ical  aip£<reis). 

1  When  we  read  in  Ign.  (ad  Philad.  5,  1)  :  irpofffiuy&v  r$  evayyeXly  wj 
or  a  pal  "IijtroO  KO.I  Totj  diro<TT&\ois  wj  irpeafiwepltf  eKKXya-ias,  it  is  fruitless 
to  try  to  find  in  the  passage  a  reference  to  the  Gospel-Canon  in  contra- 
distinction from  the  Apostolic  writings.  For  when  we  read  immediately 
after  that  the  prophets  e/s  TO  eiiayytXiov  Karriyyf\K^vai  and  this  gospel  is 
designated  as  r6  evayytXiov  TI)J  KOIVTJS  tXirlSos  (5,2),  and  the  irapov- 
<rla,  the  suffering  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  is  termed  the  egalperov  of  it 
(9,  2,  comp.  ad  Smyrn.  7,  2)  which  the  prophets  announced,  it  is  clear 
that  the  oral  message  of  salvation  delivered  by  the  Apostles  is  here 
meant.  But  the  ev  T$  evayyeXly  in  8,  2,  which  Zahn  (Ignatius  von 
Antiochen,  Gotha,  1873)  takes  as  apposition  to  ev  TOIS  apxelos  cannot 
then  be  the  written  Gospel,  as  he  supposes,  since  the  opponent  says  he 
does  not  believe  in  the  message  of  salvation  when  he  does  not  find  in  the 

0.  T.  documents  what  it  announces.     But  it  is  certain  that  the  author 
opposes  his  ytypairrai  to  him,  from  the  fact  that  according  to  ad  Eph. 
6,  3,  ad  Magn.  22  it  unquestionably  refers  to  the   O.  T.   Scriptures. 
In  Polycarp  (ad  Phil.  6,  3),  the  Apostles  are  called  oi  evi)yye\i<ra./ji.evoi 
•})/ji8.s.    Why  in  the  second  Epistle  of  Clement  and  in  the  Didache  the 
use  of  language  is  already  different,  we  shall  see  later  on  (comp.  §  7, 

1,  note  3). 


38  ORIGIN   OP   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

i/rcv ;  and  how  Matthew  made  a  collection  of  rcl  Xoyta  in  the 
Hebrew  language  (ap.  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  3,  39).  That  he  was  ac- 
quainted also  with  our  Greek  Matthew  and  Luke,  is  at  least 
very  probable ;  and  the  fact  that  he  tells  nothing  of  the 
origin  of  the  latter  certainly  does  not  prove,  as  Hilgenfeld 
assumes,  that  he  rejects  it.  But  the  very  way  in  which  he 
rpeaks  of  the  literary  origin  of  two  of  the  Gospels  and  criti- 
cizes their  peculiarities,  shows  how  far  he  was  from  regard- 
ing them  as  inspired  or  canonical  works.  In  order  to  ascer- 
tain how  far  our  written  Gospels  were  known  to  other 
writers  before  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  consider  not  only  the  words  of  the  Lord  which  they 
expressly  quote,  but  also  their  allusions  to  such  words  in 
their  works.  But  since  they  nowhere  attach  value  to  a 
definite  form  of  expression,  and  we  have  to  take  into  account 
not  only  the  written  Gospels  but  also  the  oral  tradition  in 
many  cases  fixed  by  these,  it  is  difficult  to  establish  a  know- 
ledge of  any  one  Gospel  with  certainty.  It  is  only  natural 
that  we  should  find  most  agreement  between  those  two 
Gospels  that  are  richest  in  the  Lord's  words,  especially  since 
both  contain  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  out  of  which  the  new 
law  as  it  was  given  by  the  Lord  has  always  with  propriety 
been  taken.  Yet  the  form  of  the  words  as  given  by  Matthew 
is  so  preponderating  in  Clement  that  it  may  justly  be 
doubted  whether  he  was  acquainted  with  Luke's  Gospel,  and 
even  in  Barnabas  nothing  compels  us  to  go  beyond  Mat- 
thew.8 In  Ignatius  and  Polycarp  themselves  no  trace  of 

*  The  enlargement  which  Matt.  vii.  1,  etc.  has  received  in  1  Clem. 
13,  2,  refers  back  in  the  commencement  to  Matt.  v.  7 ;  vi.  14,  and  there 
ia  in  the  wi  xf>1J<TT(l^eff^e  (comp.  1  Cor.  xiii.  4)  o&rwj  xpTfffTfvGfyrerai  an 
expression  BO  foreign  to  oar  written  Gospels,  that  it  is  very  doubtful 
whether  the  wj  tioart,  o&rws  SoO^fftran  tofur  must  be  referred  to  Luke 
vi.  38.  The  citation  46,  8  is  fully  explained  by  a  combination  of  Matt, 
xxvi.  24  and  xviii.  6.  To  draw  a  conclusion  from  the  form  of  the 
citation  of  Isaiah  xxix.  13  (1  Clem.  15,  2),  as  to  an  acquaintance  with 
Mark  vii.  9  (comp.  Harnack,  Holtzmaun),  is  still  very  precarious.  In 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   LOKD'S   WOEDS.  39 

Luke's  text  appears,  a  fact  which,  forms  the  stronger  testi- 
mony to  the  predominance  of  the  Matthew  type,  because 
they,  as  well  as  Barnabas,  show  that  they  were  already  ac- 
quainted with  the  Acts.4  Not  till  the  second  Epistle  of 
Clement  (4,  5  ;  5,  2 ;  4 ;  6, 1,  comp.  also  12,  2)  and  the  Di- 
dache  (1,  3  ;  4 ;  5  ;  16,  1)  does  the  influence  of  Luke's  Gos- 
pel on  the  form  of  the  Lord's  words  indubitably  appear. 
In  Hermas  there  is  no  certain  trace  of  the  two  Gospels,  but 
an  unmistakable  echo  of  Mark  x.  24,  etc.  (Sim.  ix.  20,  2  f . ; 
comp.  also  v.  2,  6  with  Mark  xii.  6,  ff. ;  Mand.  iv.  1,  6,  10 
with  Mark  x.  11  f),  and  the  eis  TO  irvp  TO  ao-fieorov  x«V>i/crei 
in  Ignatius  ad  Eph.  16,  2,  has  a  reminiscence  of  Mark  ix. 
43. 

7.  When  the  Gospel  of  John  appeared,  in  the  last  decade 
of  the  first  century,  about  the  same  time  as  the  first  Epistle 
of  Clement,  the  oral  tradition  of  the  Lord's  words  had 
already  for  more  than  twenty  years  borne  the  impress  given 
to  it  by  the  older  evangelical  writings  scattered  throughout 
the  Churches,  especially  our  Gospel  of  Matthew.  The  cur- 
rent idea  of  the  Lord's  words  could  neither  be  changed  nor 
modified  by  that  of  John's  Gospel  which  was  in  many  re- 


Barnabas  we  find,  besides  reminiscences  of  Matt.  xxii.  14  (4,  14),  only 
a  few  allusions  to  the  narrative  of  the  gospel  history  (5,  9  ;  7,  9  ;  12, 10), 
which  are  sufficiently  explained  by  Matt.,  and  the  tTrorlfrro  6£et,  Kal 
XoXij  (7,  3)  certainly  shows  an  acquaintance  with  our  first  Gospel.  The 
el  iv  T$  a<p0apT<f  Koivuvol  tare,  iroVy  fj.a\\ov  iv  rails  (pdaprots  (19,  8)  is 
originally  a  transformation  or  imitation  of  Luke  xvi.  11  f.,  but  was  not 
necessarily  made  by  Barnabas. 

4  Comp.  Barn.  19,  8 :  KOivuvrjffeis  ev  ircuri  TW  ir\i)<rlov  yov,  Kal  O&K  tpets 
ISta  elvai  with  Acts  iv.  32  (comp.  also  No.  6,  note  1) ;  Ignat.  ad  Stnyrn. 
3,  3 :  jtierct  6t  rrjv  avd(rra<ra>  ffvvt<j>a.yev  oi)ro"y  Kal  <ruvtirtei>  with  Acts  x.  41 ; 
Pol.  ad  Phil.  1,  2  :  6V  Ijyftpev  o  6ebs  \6<ras  ras  tiSivas  rov  g.Sov  with  Acts 
ii.  24.  An  allusion  to  Acts  iv.  12  in  Herm.  Vis.  iv.  2,  4 :  8t'  ovdevks  Sfoy 
ffudrjvai  el  yar;  5t&  roG  (ity.  Kal  &/5j£ou  6v6/j.aros  is  not  so  certain  (comp. 
also  Sim.  ix.  28,  5,  with  Acts  v.  41).  On  the  other  hand,  for  the  appear- 
ance of  Christ  mentioned  in  Ign.  ad  Smyrn.  3,  2,  we  must  go  back,  by 
reason  of  what  we  know  of  the  Lord's  word  from  other  sources,  to  oral 
tradition  and  not  to  Luke  xxiv.  36  ff . 


40  OBIGIN   OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

spects  so  singular,  nor  did  the  words  of  the  Lord  peculiar  to 
it  offer  such  concrete  cvroXai  as  were  at  that  time  looked 
for  in  them.  Nevertheless  we  find  that  from  the  beginning 
this  very  Gospel  produced  a  more  powerful  and  universal 
effect  on  the  authors  of  the  second  century  than  any  other 
N.  T.  writing,  not  indeed  by  means  of  isolated  words  of  the 
Lord,  but  by  its  whole  theological  and  literary  peculiarity, 
and  therefore  more  or  less  in  connection  with  the  con- 
temporaneous Johannine  Epistles.  Already  in  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas  the  iXfielv  iv  crapKi  (5,  10,  etc.,  comp.  1  John  iv.  2) 
and  the  <j>avcpovo-0ai  of  Christ  (6,  7 ;  9,  comp.  1  John  i. ;  ii. 
3 ;  v.  8),  his  KaroiKclv  iv  rjij.lv  (6,  14,  comp.  Gosp.  i.  14)  and 
his  Ka.TaKevrao-6ai  (7,  9,  comp.  Gosp.  xix.  34,  37),  the  com- 
parison with  the  brazen  serpent  (12,  5  ff.,  comp.  Gosp.  iii. 
14)  and  his  avafiaiveiv  after  the  </>aye/>u)o-is  on  the  day  of 
resurrection  (15,  9,  comp.  Gosp.  xx.  17  ;  xxi.  1)  point  to 
the  Johannine  writings.  Even  in  the  Shepherd  of  Hennas 
Christ  is  the  TTV\TJ  and  the  only  access  to  the  Father  (Sim. 
ix.  12,  5  f.),  He  gives  the  law  that  He  has  received  from 
His  Father  (Sim.  v.  6,  3),  and  His  commands  are  not  diffi- 
cult (Mand.  xii.  3,  5).  The  necessary  connection  between 
the  knowledge  of  God  and  the  ayaOonroitiv  is  developed  in 
Sim.  ix.  18,  1  f.  in  true  Johannine  fashion.1  In  the  Ignatian 

1  Already  in  Sim.  ix.  12,  1  the  Sou  of  God  is  called  the  iri/Xi;  (comp. 
Gosp.  z.  9,  iyu  flfu  17  6upa'  5t'  l/xov  lav  ris  tijAflj;  ffw07)<rrreu),  and  in  12,  5 
we  read  e/i  rty  /3a(nX.  T.  Oeou  AXXwi  clfftXOtii'  oi5  JiWrat  Hvdpuirot  (comp. 
Gosp.  iii.  5)  el  /XT)  Sib  rod  6vc/j.aTos  rod  vlou  aurov  (comp.  also  16,  5,  and 
with  it  1  John  iii.  23 ;  v.  13).  With  12,  6 :  aiTrj  pla  ttffoS&t  eVn  irpfa  rd* 
Kupiov'  &\\us  ouv  ovScit  flaf\(vatrai  irpbt  avritv  (I  /J.TJ  Sia.  70v  vlou  airroi', 
comp.  Gosp.  xiv.  6.  With  Sim.  v.  6,  3  :  5ot>i  oi/roir  rbv  ro/toi>  6v  (Xafie 
vapa  TOV  varpfa  avrou  coinp.  Gosp.  z.  18  :  rairri]>t  ivro\ty  t\a^oi>  trapit  TOU 
varpiit  fj.ou  and  with  the  preceding  taOaplffas  rdt  d/xa/>rlat  rou  XaoO  comp. 
1  John  i.  7,  9.  With  Maud.  xii.  3,  5  (r&s  fVroXdi  rai/rat)  <pv\d£dt  <cai  OUK 
tffovrai  ffK\i)pal  comp.  1  John  V.  3 :  al  tt>ro\al  avrov  ftapdcu  OVK  tlffiv  and 
with  the  expression  atcXrjph,  Gosp.  vi.  60.  With  Sim.  ix.  18, 1,  etc.,  comp. 
1  John  ii.  3,  elc.,  and  with  the  expression  KoXoats,  1  John  iv.  18 ;  dyaOo- 
-rotdf,  3  John  11.  Further  information  will  be  found  in  Zahn  (Der  llirt 
da  Hennas,  Gotha,  186S),  aud  Holtzmann,  who  is  inclined  however  to 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   LOED'S   WOEDS.  41 

Epistles  the  Son  of  God  is  already  termed  avrou  Aoyo? — 
o?  Kara  Travra  evrjptoTrjfrev  T<3  Tre/xi^avTi  avrov  (ad  Magn.  8,  2, 
comp.  Gosp.  i.  1  ;  viii.  29),  He  was  -rrpo  a'uavwv  irapa.  Trarpi 
(ad  Magn.  7,  1,  comp.  Gosp.  i.  2;  xvii.  5),  He  did  nothing 
without  the  Father,  ^vw/tevos  &v  (ad  Magn.  7,  1,  comp. 
Gosp.  v.  19  ;  x.  30;  xvii.  22).  Here  too  He  is  called  ev  crapKi 
•ycvo/xevos  $eos  and  ev  6a.va.rw  £0)77  aXrjOwr)  (ad  Eph.  5,  2 ;  comp. 
Gosp.  i.  1,  14 ;  1  John  v.  20)  ;  here  too  6vpa  TOV  Trarpo;  (ad 
Philad.  9,  1;  comp.  Gosp.  x.  9).  As  the  o-o/>£  'I^o-.  Xo.  is 
called  apros  tfeoO  (ad  Bom.  7,  3 ;  comp.  Gosp.  vi.  33,  51),  so 
His  blood  is  a  iro^a.  (Gosp.  vi.  55).  If  we  add  to  these  the 
constant  designation  of  the  devil  as  apx&v  TOV  ai£>vo<s  TOVTOV, 
and  the  expression  v8wp  £wv  (ad  Rom.  7,  2),  both  peculiarly 
Johannine,  besides  /xeVeiv  ev  X/HOT.  (ad  Eph.  10,  3 ;  comp.  ad 
Magn.  13, 1:  evw<3  KCH  Trarpt),  as  well  as  the  evident  reference 
to  John  iii.  8  (ad  Philad.  7,  1 ;  comp.  also  the  Johannine  eXey- 
X«v),  they  certainly  show  a  knowledge  of  John's  Gospel,  as 
even  Holtzmann  admits.  While  no  reminiscences  of  the 
Gospel  are  to  be  found  in  Polycarp,  7,  1  begins  with  a  sen- 
tence almost  every  word  of  which  is  to  be  found  in  1  John 
iv.  2,  etc.  (comp.  2  John  7),  and  bears  a  stamp  so  character- 
istically Johannine  that  the  pretext  of  a  locus  communis  or  a 
borrowing  from  Polycarp  is  a  priori  excluded.  Papias  too, 
according  to  Eusebius  (JET.  E.y  3, 39),  has  made  nse  of  passages 
from  the  first  Epistle  of  John ;  in  the  fragment  of  his  preface 
there  preserved,  he  calls  Christ  avrr)  TJ  aXrjdua  (comp.  Gosp. 
xiv.  6)  ;  among  the  Apostles  enumerated  he  names  fii-st  the 
three  that  are  named  in  the  beginning  of  John's  Gospel 
(i.  41,  44),  together  with  Thomas,  who  plays  a  part  only  in 
it ;  and  when  he  names  John  and  Matthew  last  among  the 
Apostles  whose  utterances  he  sought  out,  he  must  have  been 
acquainted  with  the  former's  written  record  of  the  Lord's 

give  the  priority  to  Hennas  here  also,  as  he  does  decidedly  in  the  case  of 
Barnabas  (Zeitschrift  f.  wiss.  Theol.,  1871,  3),  while  even  Wittichen  aud 
Keirn  admit  that  both  were  acquainted  with  John. 


42  ORIGIN   OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

words,  as  it  can  be  proved  he  was  with  those  of  the  latter, 
and  must  therefore  have  had  least  need  to  investigate  their 
oral  statements  on  this  point.1  In  the  second  Epistle  of 
Clement  we  find  the  <rap£  fye'vrro  taken  from  John  i.  14  (9,  5), 
and  the  apvcia-Oai  Si  ov  eyvw/xev  avrov  (rov  irartpa  TTJS  aXrjOcias) 
3,  1  reminds  ns  the  more  of  1  John  ii.  23,  since  the  yivoi- 
<TKovT€?  TOV  Ofov  Are  there  in  true  Johannine  phraseology 
called  01  fctavrfs  (comp.  also  17,  1,  and  with  it  Gosp.  ami. 
3).  But  we  are  also  frequently  reminded  of  John  by  the 
use  of  £o>i;  and  <f><a<>,  Odvaros  and  6  KOCT/IOS  OUTOS,  VLKO.V  and 
[ua-civ,  while  the  Tra/ja^Ai/Tos,  6,  9,  recalls  1  John  ii.  I.2 
Finally,  while  the  words  of  the  Lord  in  the  Didache  are 
in  no  case  borrowed  from  John's  Gospel,  the  eucharistic 
prayers  in  chap.  9,  10  are  replete  with  Johannine  ideas  and 
expressions,  such  as  ^wr)  nal  yvuio'is  (9,  3),  yvuKris  *ai  TTIOTIS 


1  The  preface  of  an  evangelical  manuscript  of  the  9th  century  (comp. 
Aberle,  Theol.  Quartalschr,  1864  ;  Zahn,  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1867)  does  not 
suffice  to  prove  that  he  imparted  knowledge  respecting  the  origin  of 
John's  Gospel  as  well  as  concerning  Matthew  and  Mark,  nor  does  the 
silence  of  Eusebius,  who  regarded  its  origin  as  universally  known  and 
recognised,  prove  the  contrary  ;  but  it  is  scarcely  probable,  since  this 
Gospel  was  certainly  well  enough  known  in  his  circle.  That  in  his 
exegeses  of  the  words  of  the  Lord  he  neither  explained  nor  made  use  of 
any  Johannine  saying  of  Christ,  does  not  however  follow  from  Eusebius, 
who  never  thinks  it  necessary  to  prove  the  early  use  of  John's  Gospel, 
while  he  did  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  importance  to  prove  the  early 
attestation  of  the  two  Homologoumena  among  the  Catholic  Epistles.  But 
when  Irenaeus  gives  an  explanation  of  John  xiv.  2  from  the  mouth  of 
the  presbyter  contemporary  with  Papias,  and  a  view  of  the  age  of  Jesus, 
which,  if  it  is  to  be  attested  by  the  Gospel,  can  only  rest  on  a  misinter- 
pretation of  John  viii.  57  (adv.  Hcer.,  v.  36,  2  ;  ii.  22,  6),  it  is  an  additional 
proof  of  the  knowledge  and  use  of  John's  Gospel  at  the  time  of  Papias. 

1  While  Holtzmann  (Zeitschr.f.  wi$t.  Theol.,  1877)  maintains  that  on 
closer  examination  these  points  of  contact  disappear,  he  emphasizes  the 
points  of  contact  between  1  Clem,  and  the  Johannine  writings,  although 
a  glance  at  the  connection  shows  how  very  differently  the  former  employs 
tpydftffOcutpyoi'  (33,  8),  Toittv  dX^tfecav  (31,  2),  the  connection  of  TeXetoO<r0ai 
with  dyarrj  (49,  5  ;  50,  3)  of  T«rr6j  and  StVatos  (27,  1;  60,  1),  and  although 
he  himself  refers  to  1  Thess.  i.  9  for  &\i)9u>6t  6t6t.  But  it  is  a  strange 
fancy  that  the  relation  of  the  apostles  to  Christ  (42,  1;  2)  is  said  to 
contain  a  specific  Johannine  element. 


OLDEST  TRACES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES.   43 

KO.I  aOavacria  (10,  2),  a/o-eAos  Aa/3i'8  (9,  2,  comp.  Gosp.  xv.). 
In  particular  we  are  reminded  of  the  prayer  in  John  xvii., 
by  the  expressions  Trdrep  ayie,  TO  ovofio.  trou,  eyvojpiicras  rj/uv 
Sta  "irja-ov  (10,  2,  comp.  9,  2  f.),  TeAciaxrai,  dyiacr^i/ai  (10,  5), 
and  eye'vero  Iv  (9,  4).  Hence  it  is  most  probable  that 
these  prayers  were  not  freely  composed,  but  refer  to  a  litur- 
gical usage  already  fixed ;  and  the  more  certainly  do  they 
prove  how  early  and  how  extensively  the  Johannine  writ- 
ings had  influenced  the  life  of  the  Church. 

§  6.    THE  OLDEST  TRACES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
E  PISTLES. 

1.  When  Paul  first  began  to  write,  he  occasionally  en- 
joined upon  his  Churches  to  hold  fast  that  which  he  had 
taught  them  in  the  name  and  spirit  of  Christ,  whether 
orally  or  in  writing  (2  Thess.  ii.  15),  and  afterwards  spoke  of 
obedience  to  his  written  instructions  (2  Cor.  ii.  9;  vii.  15). 
Jude  17  contains  a  reference  to  an  oral  prophecy  of  the 
apostles  of  our  Lord.  But  only  once  in  the  New  Testament 
are  Apostolic  (Pauline)  Epistles  mentioned,  where  a  warning 
is  given  against  intentionally  misinterpreting  them  (2  Pet. 
iii.  15  f.).  And  throughout  the  whole  pre-Justinian  age 
we  only  meet  with  mention  of  Apostolic  (Pauline)  Epistles 
where  a  writing  to  the  Churches  that  had  received  these 
Epistles,  gave  special  occasion  for  such  mention.  Thus  in 
1  Clem.  47,  2  an  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  is  mentioned, 
and  in  Polycarp  3,  2,  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians.1  Hence 
it  appears  that  these  Epistles  were  still  regarded  as  the 
exclusive  property  of  individual  Churches,  and  for  this  very 
reason  there  can  be  no  thought  of  their  possessing  regulative 
validity  in  the  Church,  or  having  been  collected  into  an 
epistolary  Canon.  When  in  1  Clem.  47,  1  the  Corinthians 

1  The  5s  iv  irdffjj  evurro\f  /j.i>r)fj.ovev€i  U/JLUV  in  Ign.  ad  Eph.  12,  2  cannot 
here  be  considered,  since  the  transmitted  text  is  quite  unintelligible. 


44  ORIGIN   OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

are  called  upon  to  take  up  again  (dvaXa/Jerc)  the  Epistle  of 
Paul,  because  he  treats  of  similar  improprieties  to  those 
•which  disturbed  the  Church  at  that  time  (47,  3  f.),  when 
Poly  carp  3,  2  says :  ets  as  cav  (not  orav)  ty/cwrn/Te,  SinnfofOt 
olKo&ofjLfLcrOaL,  it  follows  directly  from  these  passages  that  a 
regular  (ecclesiastical)  reading  of  the  apostolic  epistles  was 
not  thought  of  that  time.  Citation  of  an  epistolary  passage 
(1  Cor.  vi.  2)  occurs  first  in  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp  and  in 
it  alone,  at  least  according  to  the  old  translation ;  but  it  is 
introduced  with  the  very  artless  expression  ut  Paulus  docet, 
showing  that  it  has  by  no  means  an  authority  analogous  to 
that  of  Scripture  (11,  2).2  All  this  is  the  more  significant, 
since  from  the  first  no  doubt  existed  as  to  the  unique  im- 
portance of  the  apostles,  on  the  ground  of  their  relation  to 
Christ.  The  entrusting  to  them  of  the  message  of  salvation 
proceeds  from  Christ,  just  as  the  sending  of  Christ  proceeds 
from  God  (1  Clem.  42,  1  f.).  The  unique  authorization  of 
the  Twelve  to  preach  the  message  of  salvation  (Barn.  8,  3) 
rests  on  the  fact  of  their  having  been  chosen  for  this  pur- 
pose (5,  9).  But  although  the  Epistle  of  Clement  lays  great 
stress  on  their  spiritual  preparation  for  the  office,  yet  at  the 
same  time  it  expressly  maintains  the  universal  communica- 
tion of  the  Spirit,  which  gives  equal  authority  to  the  ex- 
hortation of  every  teacher  who  is  filled  with  the  Spirit.3 
Hence  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  can  class  the  apostles  with 

*  In  Pol.  12, 1,  where  we  read  bat  only  in  a  translation,  ut  his  scrip- 
turit  dictum  est,  the  passage  in  Eph.  iv.  26  is  not  meant,  since  the 
intervening  et  shows  that  the  author  thought  of  two  different  passages 
of  Scripture.    In  that  case  Deut.  xziv.  15  occurred  to  his  memory  as 
Scripture  in  the  second  half  of  the  verse,  just  as  he  actually  quoted  from 
Scripture  in  the  first  half  (Fs.  iv.  5).    Coinp.  §  5,  G,  note  1. 

*  The  apostles  went  forth  at  the  command  of  Christ,  with  a  joy  in 
believing  imparted  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  announce  that  the  kingdom 
of  Qod  was  at  hand  (1  Clem.  42,  3) ;   by  the   same    Spirit  they  were 
empowered  to  arrange  the  affairs  of  the  Church  (42,  4 ; 

*pci//icm) ;  and  what  Paul  said  to  the  Corinthians  tr  6.\rjOdas 
rixut  trtffTfiXeu'  (47,  3)  must  always  be  heard  again.    Bat  a 


OLDEST  TEACES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES.   45 

the  first  generation  of  teachers  who  by  the  unanimity  of  their 
teaching  have  founded  the  unity  of  the  Church  (Vis.  iii. 
5,  1),  and  the  number  is  thus  fixed  at  forty  (Sim.  ix.  15,  4). 
They  first  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  remained  in- 
separably with  them  and  fitted  them  for  their  work  (15,  6), 
the  work  of  making  known  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God 
to  all  the  world,  and  in  the  teaching  of  the  Divine  word 
(16,  5;  25,  2).  In  the  Didache  also  the  apostolic  office  is 
regarded  as  still  existing. 

2.  It  is  true  that  the  Church,  when  threatened  with  serious 
errors  in  life  and  doctrine,  which  the  simple  words  of  the 
Lord  were  not  able  to  combat,  was  accustomed  to  put  the 
authority  of  the  apostles  on  a  par  with  these  (Ign.  ad  Mag. 
13,  1  :  TO.  Soy/xara  TOV  Kvpiov  Kal  r<ttv  aTroffroXoiv,  comp.  ad 
Trail.  7,  1  :  d^wpurTots  Oeov  'Irjcr.  Xp.  KOI  T.  ITTLO-KOTTOV  KO!  TWV 
Siaray/AaTtoV  T.  aTroor.,  Pol.  ad  Phil.  6,  3  :  Karoos  avros  everciXaTO 
KOL  ol  euayyeXwra/xevoi  ^/Jias  aTrooroAoi  Kal  01  irpo^rai)  ;  their 
authority  is  even  indirectly  put  on  a  par  with  that  of  the 
Old  Testament,  as  the  words  of  Christ  only  are  elsewhere 
put  (2  Clem.  14,  2:  TO.  pifiXia.  KCU  ol  aTrooroXot).1  This  does 
not  of  course  imply  an  independent  authority  in  addition  to 
that  of  the  Lord,  but  one  that  has  its  warrant  from  Him 
and  is  by  Him  enabled  to  exercise  its  functions  ;  but  neither 
does  it  imply  an  authority  limited  to  the  further  inculcation 


ov  ficxvyis  eirl  vdvras  tytvero  (2,  2,  comp.  46,  6);  hence  the 
Epistle  of  Clement  freely  characterizes  his  words  as  rd,  \nf  ai/roi;  (T.  0eov) 
Si  rifL&v  elfyij^va.  (comp.  59,  1,  TOIJ  i><p'  •fjfj.&v  yeypafj-^vois  8i&  TOV  aylov 
irveij/jLaros  63,  2).  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas  likewise  speaks  of  an  in- 
dwelling of  the  Divine  Logos  or  Spirit  in  all  believers  (16,  8  f.  ;  19,  7), 
and  similarly  Hermas  (Mand.  iii.  1  f.). 

1  It  is  in  harmony  with  this  that  the  persons  of  the  Apostles  tower  above 
all  inspired  teachers  of  the  present.  Ignatius,  as  bishop,  does  indeed 
speak  0wj/g  OeoS  (ad  Phil.  7,  1  ;  comp.  ad  Trail.  7,  1)  ;  but  already,  ad 
Bom.  4,  3,  we  read  of/x  ws  ll^r/sos  ical  IlaDXos  8ta.Tdffffofj.cu  vfuv,  comp.  ad 
Trail.  3,  3  ;  Pol.  ad  Phil.  3,  2  :  oflre  £y«J>  oSre  dXXoj  fy*oioj  tpol  MVO.TO.I 
Ka.TO.Ko\ov6riffu  r$  ffo<j>lq.  T.  (MK.  K,  tvS.  IlatfXov,  and  the  Ephesians  are 
said  to  be  happy  in  having  the  apostles  always  in  their  midst,  especially 
Paul  the  Martyr  (Ign.  ad  Eph.)  11.  2  ;  12,  2. 


46  ORIGIN   OP  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

of  that  which  had  beon  commanded  by  the  Lord  Him- 
self  daring  His  life  on  earth.  When  a  writing  professes 
to  be  a  8i8axr}  TOV  Kvpiov,  and  enters  so  minutely  into  the 
details  of  later  ecclesiastical  relations  and  arrangements  of 
worship,  it  cannot  pretend  that  all  its  appointments  are 
direct  injunctions  of  the  Lord,  but  only  aims  at  showing 
how  the  Apostles  arranged  these  things  in  the  name  and 
spirit  of  Christ.  But  this  apostolic  authority  is,  notwith- 
standing, a  purely  ideal  force,  so  to  speak.  The  views  and 
ordinances  already  adopted  by  the  Church  are  in  fact  simply 
assumed  to  have  their  origin  in  the  apostles,  and  through 
them  in  Christ  as  the  6  e£  apx^Js  wapaSo&is  rjfiiv  Ao'yos  (Pol. 
ad  Phil.  7,  2).  But  the  need  of  establishing  by  documentary 
evidence  that  which  had  been  transmitted  by  the  apostles, 
was  not  yet  felt.  Hence  the  peculiar  phenomenon  that 
reference  is  only  incidentally  made  (comp.  No.  1)  to  the 
apostolic  epistles,  while  there  is  no  thought  of  their  use  as 
authoritative  works.  Even  2  Clem.  14,  2  contains  no  refer- 
ence to  the  apostolic  writings,  as  Holtzmann  still  maintains. 
It  is  obvious  that  where  known  they  were  much  read,  while 
increasing  weight  was  attached  to  their  thoughts  and  modes 
of  expression,  as  we  have  already  seen  to  be  the  case  with 
the  Johannine  writings  (§  5,  7),  and  as  happens  frequently 
with  extra- canonical  books ;  but  they  are  not  quoted.8 

3.  It  is  always  of  .much  interest  to  follow  up  the  literary 
relations  between  the  so-called  apostolic  Fathers  and  the  New 
Testament  writings.  But  even  where  such  can  be  shown 
to  exist,  they  naturally  prove  nothing  for  the  genuineness  or 

8  It  in  a  matter  of  great  difficulty  to  determine  where  amid  the  many 
points  of  contact  between  the  post-apostolio  literature  and  that  of  the 
New  Testament,  a  literary  relation  may  with  certainty  be  accepted.  The 
collectanea  of  editors  and  the  compilations  specially  occupied  with  this 
question  are  very  much  in  want  of  critical  sifting.  Comp.  Lardner, 
14  The  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History,"  translated  from  the  English, 
1750,  71.  Kirohhofer,  Quelleiwammlung  tur  Getchichte  det  N.  Testa- 
mcntlichen  Kanon,  Zurich,  1844. 


OLDEST  TRACES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES.    47 

canonicity  of  these  works  ;  yet  they  testify  to  their  existence 
and  open  up  a  view  into  the  range  of  their  circulation  and 
usefulness.  It  only  follows  from  this  that  we  cannot  prove 
the  use  of  such  a  writing,  but  by  no  means  that  it  was  not  in 
existence  and  unknown.  The  First  Epistle  of  Clement  points 
directly  to  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  in  its 
detailed  description  of  the  state  of  parties  (chap.  47),  and 
contains  in  chap.  49  a  plain  imitation  of  the  Pauline  psalm 
of  love  (1  Cor.  xiii.).1  It  is  the  more  striking  that  1  Clem. 

47,  1  speaks  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  as  if  there 
were  no  second,  and  that  in  fact  no  certain  reminiscence 
of  it  can  be  shown.     The  copying  of  the  catalogue  of  vice 
(i.  29-32)  in  35,  5  sufficiently  proves  a  knowledge  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  although  only  isolated  phrases  recall 
the  rest  of  its  contents.2    Of  the  Captivity  Epistles,  Clement 
is  acquainted  with  those  to  the  Ephesians  and  Philippians, 
although  we  have  only  one  certain  echo  of  each ;  of  the  Pas- 
toral Epistles,  First  Timothy  and  Titus.3     But  the  strongest 

1  Comp.  also  the  phrase  fijretv  rb  eavrov  from  1  Cor.  x.  24  in  48,  6. 
We  are  reminded  of  the  enumeration  of  gifts  in  1  Cor.  xii.  8  ff.,  by 

48,  5,  and  still  more  clearly  of  the  allegory  of  the  body  and  its  members 
in  xii.  21  ff.,  by  37,  4  f.     However  freely  the  "figure  of  the  seed-corn 
as  a  type  of  the  resurrection  is  carried  out,  24,  4  f.,  yet  the  desig- 
nation  of    Christ  as  the  dvapx^  of   the  resurrection  (24,  1),  and  the 
repeated  though  quite  independent  application  of  the  ZKCUTTOS  Iv  T$  Idly 
rdy/j.a.Tt  (37,  3 ;  41, 1)  shows  a  reminiscence  of  1  Cor.  xv.,  especially  as  the 
phrase  in  Clement  63,  1  applies  rbv  rdirov  dvairX-qpovit  (1  Cor.  xiv.  16)  in  a 
peculiar  way. 

3  Comp.  51,  3,  &v  7-6  Kpt^a  vp6Sri\ov  fyvt\Qi\  with  Bom.  iii.  8 ;  3,  4. 
ffdvaros  flffij\6ev  fit  TOV  Kbff^ov  with  V.  12  ;  32,  2,  el-  avrov  6  ictipiis  'Ir/ffovs 
TO  Kara,  ffdpKa  with  ix.  5 ;  40,  1,  TO,  /3d0i;  TIJS  Oelat  yvdxreus  with  xi.  33  ; 
46,  7,  fj.e\i)  (fffjiev  aXX^XoH*  with  xii.  5  ;  and  the  phrase  vvoBetvai  TOV  rpd- 
X~n^ov  63,  1,  which  indeed  is  again  applied  differently,  with  xvi.  4. 

3  In  Clement  46,  6  ju£a  K\rj<ra  is  named  together  with  "  one  God,  one 
Christ,  and  one  Spirit  "  (Eph.  iv.  4-6)  as  constituting  the  unity  of  the 
Church ;  and  in  47,  2  occurs  iv  dpxy  rov  evayye\tov  out  of  Phil.  iv.  15. 
Yet  the  thought  in  16,  2  always  recalls  Phil.  ii.  6,  and  the  fly  eiriffriirovs 
teal  5ia,K6t>ovs  which  contradicts  the  mode  of  expression  elsewhere  used 
in  the  Epistle,  recalls  Phil.  1,  1.  The  iyvfa  /cat  afiidvTovt  x«Pa*  tfpovres 
71710  s  avroif,  29,  1,  is  plainly  an  imitation  of  1  Tim.  ii.  8  (comp.  also 


48          OEIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

leaning  is  upon  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  from  which 
i.  3-13  is  copied  in  36,  2-4,  chap.  xi.  in  chaps.  9-12,  17,  etc. 
(comp.  also  chap.  45),  xii.  1  in  19,  1,  etc.  It  is  therefore 
unnecessary  to  refer  to  such  resemblances  as  that  of  27,  2  to 
Heb.  vi.  18,  or  to  the  conception  of  Christ  as  a  high  priest 
(comp.  especially  36,  1  with  Heb.  iv.  15,  etc.),  or  that  of  the 
spirit  as  wev/Aa  -n/s  x"PtTOS  (46,  6,  comp.  Heb.  x.  29).  Finally, 
an  acquaintance  with  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  may  be  in- 
ferred with  certainty  from  the  passage  exaXeo-ev  rjfi.a.<;  «K  TOV 
O-KOTOVS  ek  <££?,  59,  2  (comp.  2,  9),  from  phrases  such  as  TI/^V 
aTTore'/teiv  (1,  3),  rt)tuov  at/ia  (7,  4),  Kparata  \€^P  (28,  2  ;  60,  3), 
TTCLVTOS  irvcv(JLa.To<;  CTTIO-KOTTOV  (59,  3  ;  comp.  1  Pet.  ii.  25),  from 
the  Petrine  quotations  of  Prov.  iii.  34;  x.  12  (30,  2;  49,  4), 
from  the  TrXrjOwdfia  of  the  introductory  greeting,  and  many 
expressions  peculiar  only  to  the  Epistle  of  Peter,  such  as 
dyafloTTouo,  aTr/xxraMroXT/Trnos,  V7roypa/i/to?,  which  in  16,  17,  as 
in  Peter,  contain  a  reference  to  Isa.  liii.  On  the  other  hand 
no  palpable  trace  of  the  second  Epistle  is  to  be  found,  not 
even  in  the  /u.eyoXo7r/>e7n/s  So£a,  9,  2,  or  in  11,  1  comp.  with 
2  Pet.  ii.  9. 

4.  In  Barnabas  echoes  of  Paul  are  very  scanty.  Yet  the 
trarfpa.  I6v!av  T£>V  irioTevovrtov  Si*  aKpoySuori'as,  13,  7,  shows  an 
acquaintance  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (iv.  11)  ;  the 
iv  rep  rryainjucvia,  3,  6,  and  rjnepat  irovrjpal,  2,  1,  recall  Eph.  i.  6  ; 
v.  16,  and  the  iv  avru>  Travra  KOI  eis  avrov,  12,  7,  reminds  us 
of  Col.  i.  16.  On  the  other  hand,  an  idea  such  as  that  of 
the  Church  as  a  temple  (chap.  16),  so  closely  connected  with 


the  if  Trlffrei  ical  dXijflefy,  64,  4  with  ii.  7).  The  description  of  the 
woman,  1,  3,  with  its  fulness  of  particulars  (kyvn  —  <rr«p-yoiJ<rat  T.  &»&p. 
—  olKOvpyft*  —  vTorayrjt  —  wppovovaa.*)  touches  very  closely  upon  Titus 
ii.  4  f.,  and  troi^ov  tit  *3*  tpyov  ayaOov,  2,  7,  is  from  Titus  iii.  1 
(comp.  also  the  eucre/Sws  KO.I  Sinaiw  62,  1,  with  Titus,  ii.  12,  and  tpyuv  wr 
KaTttfryaffd/JLeOa.  iv,  32,  4,  with  Titos  iii.  5).  But  he  has  also  other 
favourite  expressions,  suoh  as  fftfvbt,  <rw<f>pup,^{iffe^t  with  their  deriv- 
atives, in  common  with  the  Pastoral  Epi>-tl<s,  and  has  borrowed  a 
number  of  their  peculiarities,  such  as  Avafairvpelv,  riffrtrttlt,  *  p 
dywyj,  d.v6ffiot,  p8(\vicrot  and  others. 


OLDEST  TRACES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES.    49 

the  fundamental  thoughts  of  the  Epistle,  must  not  be  derived 
from  the  Corinthian  letter.  Where  the  Pastoral  Epistles  are 
concerned,  the  resemblance  to  Titus  ii.  14  (14,  6 :  Avrpwo-a/ievoi' 
fj/j.(is — erot/Aacrai  caurco  Xaov  aytov)  is  so  striking,  that  by  it  the 
meaning  of  ev  o-ap/ci  <f>avep<a8r)vai  (5,6;  6,  7,  9 ;  12,  10;  comp. 
1  Tim.  iii.  16)  likewise  becomes  clear,  although  the  Johan- 
nine  echoes  in  themselves  give  a  satisfactory  explanation, 
(comp.  §  5,  7)  ;  as  also  Karapyrjcrai  TOV  Qa.va.rov  (5,  6)  is  ex- 
plained by  2  Tim.  i.  10  ;  eTTtcrcopeuo-avras  rat?  d/xapriais  (4,  6) 
by  2  Tim.  iv.  3 ;  iii.  6 ;  and  the  farewell  blessing  6  Kvpios — 
/xera  TOU  TTvev/Aaros  o-ou  (21,  9)  by  2  Tim.  iv.  22.  The  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians  is  the  only  Pauline  Epistle  of  which  we 
find  echoes  in  Hermas,  e.g.  Mand.  x.  2,  2  ff.,  where  the  com- 
ment XVITCLV  TO  Trvfvfjia  is  taken  from  Eph.  iv.  30 ;  thus,  fv 
TTvev/xo,  ev  crwfjM  (Sim.  x.  13,  5)  recalls  Eph.  iv.  4,  because 
of  the  addition  /u'o.  ma-ris  in  18,  4,  and  the  StKcuoo-uv^  Kal 
dX^eta,  Sim.  ix.  25,  2.  On  the  other  hand,  he  leans  very 
much  on  the  Epistle  of  James.1  "We  are  reminded  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  by  the  expressions  aTroo-Trjvai  O.TTO 
0eo9  £WVTOS,  Vis.  ii.  3,  2  (Heb.  iii.  12)  ;  the  KaTypTio-Orj  of  the 
creation  of  the  world,  Vis.  ii.  4,  1  (Heb.  xi.  3)  ;  and  the 
SiSaxa!  £evai,  Sim.  viii.  6,  5  (Heb.  xiii.  9).  The  echoes  of 
the  Petrine  Epistles  discovered  by  Zahn  (of  the  First  Epistle 

1  The  detailed  passage  respecting  the  hearing  of  prayer  (i.  6  ff.)  evi- 
dently lies  at  the  basis  of  Mand.  ix.  1  ff. ;  Sim.  v.  4,  3  f.,  and  is  frequently 
re-echoed  (e.g.  io  Sun.  iv.  6 ;  comp.  the  AvoveiStarus  in  Sim.  ix.  24, 
and  the  ever-recurring  warning  against  Si^vyla),  just  as  the  Svvdfievos 
ffwrai  ras  if/vx&s  v/j.(ai>  (i.  21)  is  echoed  in  Sim.  vi.  1,1;  the  ^iriovceTrTeo-- 
Oai  tptpavotis  Kal  x^P«s  (i-  27),  in  Sim.  i.  8 ;  Mand.  viii.  10 ;  the  TO  6vo/j.a 
TO  £TriK\r]Ott>  t<p'  u/*aj  (ii.  7)  in  Sim.  viii.  6,  4 ;  the  dmmwraTo*'  KO.KOV 
(iii.  8)  in  Mand.  ii.  3  ;  the  antithesis  of  8.vw9ev  and  Myetov  (iii.  15)  in 
Mand.  ix.  11 ;  the  T&  irveu,u,a  5  KaryKiffev  £v  ^fuv  (iv.  5)  in  Mand.  iii.  1 ; 
the  dyTtffTTjTe  r$  SiapoXy  Kal  0etf£erat  a<j>  vpuv  (iv.  7)  in  Mand.  xii.  2,  4 ; 
4,  7;  5,  2);  the  prohibition  of  xaraXaXtd  (iv.  11)  in  Mand.  ii.  2  f.,  and 
frequently  e'sewhere  ;  the  6  5vt>a/j.evos  cruffai  Kal  airo\foai  (iv.  12)  in  Mand. 
xii.  6,  3;  Sim.  ix.  23,  4;  the  sighs  against  the  rich  of  those  who  have 
been  defrauded  (v.  4 ;  comp.  v.  9)  in  Vis.  iii.  9,  6 ;  the  irpv^ffare  Kal 
ttnraTa\i!i<raTe  in  Sim.  vi.  1,  6  ;  2,  . 


50  ORIGIN   OF   TIIE    XKW   TKSTAMKNT   CANON. 

by  Holtzmann  also,  of  the  Second  pnrtiruliirly  by  Dietlein 
in  his  Commentary)  are  very  uncertain,  although  the  pln;iM- 
Trop€vovTOiL  <MTaT<us  Kal  Tpv<f>als,  Sim.  vi.  2,  2  (comp.  2  Pet.  ii. 
13),  is  certainly  very  striking.  Neither  do  we  find  any 
palpable  echo  of  the  Apocalypse,  notwithstanding  much 
similarity  of  figure  and  symbol. 

5.  The  epistle  most  freely  used  in  the  Ignatian  letters  is 
1  Corinthians,  viz.  i.  18,  23 ;  comp.  ver.  20  with  ad  Eph.  18, 
1 ;  iv.  4  with  ad  Rom.  5,  1;  vi.  9  with  ad  Eph.  16,  1,  ad 
Philad.  3,  3 ;  ix.  1  with  ad  Rom.  4,  3;  be.  27  with  ad  Trail. 
12,  3 ;  xv.  8  with  ad  Rom.  9,  2,  to  which  may  be  added 
expressions  such  as  irc/n/u/ri;/Aa,  oiKo8op,r)  Otov,  eSpatos,  aTreXtv- 
#epos  'Ii7<r.  and  others.  On  the  other  hand  only  one  reference 
to  the  Roman  epistle  (i.  3  f.)  occurs  (ad  Smyrn.  1,  1 ; 
comp.  ad  Eph.  18,  2),  besides  one  to  the  Galatian  Epistle 
(ad  Smyrn.  9,  1 :  u>s  en  xaipov  e^op.€v,  comp.  Gal.  vi.  10)  ;  one 
to  the  Epistle  to  tlio  Philippians  (ad  Philad.  8,  2:  firjofv  KCIT* 
(ptOeiav  7rpa0-(reT«,  aXXa  Kara  xptoTO/ia0iai',  comp.  Phil.  ii.  3,  5)  ; 
one  to  the  first  Thessalonian  Epistle  (ad  Eph.  10,  1 :  d3ta- 
XaVroj?  irpocreuxccrfle,  comp.  1  Thess  v.  17)  ;  and  one  to  the 
second  (ad  Eph.  8,  1  :  ft^  TIS  v/xas  c^aTraraTti),  comp.  2  Thess. 
ii.  13).  Further  use  is  made  of  the  Ephesian  Epistle  in 
the  comparison  of  conjugal  love  with  the  love  of  Christ  to 
the  Church  (ad  Pol.  5,  1 ;  comp.  Eph.  v.  25,  29),  and  in  the 
description  of  the  Christian  armour  (ad  Pol.  6,  2;  comp. 
Eph.  vi.  13,  17)  ;  the  ^I/TCU  Otov  (ad  Eph.  1,  1 ;  ad  Trail. 
1,  2)  in  particular  are  taken  from  Eph.  v.  1.  We  are  re- 
minded of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  by  a  number  of  expressions, 
such  as  avafcunrvptlv,  ava\}/v\tivt  ai^/AoXwri'^eiJ',  c7rayye'XX€<70ai, 
ertpoSiSao'KaXeij',  Kara.<m}(jM,  /ivdcu/iara,  and  the  frequent  desig- 
nation of  Christ  as  17  cX?rts  i)i^>v  (comp.  1  Tim.  i.  1) ;  but 
a  certain  application  of  any  particular  passage  cannot  be 
proved.  In  1'olycarp  the  epistle  most  used  is  1  Peter, 
in  some  respects  with  closer  adhesion  to  the  wording,  viz. 
to  i.  8  in  1,  13 ;  to  i.  13,  21  in  2,  1 ;  to  ii.  11  in  5,  3 ;  to 


OLDEST  TRACES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES.    51 

ii.  12  in  10,  2 ;  to  ii.  24,  22  in  8, 1 ;  to  iii.  9  in  2,  2 ;  to  iv.  7 
in  7,  2.  On  the  other  hand  the  only  reference  to  the  Philip- 
pian  Epistle,  notwithstanding  the  mention  of  it  in  3,  2,  is  to 
be  found  in  the  inimici  crucis,  12,  3  (comp.  Phil.  iii.  18). 
The  only  citation  from  the  Roman  Epistle  (xiv.  10,  12)  is  6, 
2,  perhaps  mixed  up  in  the  memory  with  2  Cor.  v.  10. 
Whether  6,  1  does  actually  refer  to  2  Cor.  viii.  21,  thus 
proving  an  acquaintance  with  the  second  Corinthian  Epistle, 
seems  doubtful,  on  account  of  Prov.  iii.  4 ;  but  on  the  other 
hand  it  is  certain  that  11,  2  quotes  from  the  passage  1  Cor. 
vi.  2,  and  that  5,  3  is  a  reminiscence  of  1  Cor.  vi.  9,  as  5,  1 
of  Gal.  vi.  7  (comp.  also  3,  3  with  Gal.  iv.  26,  and  9,  2  with 
ii.  2 ;  1,  3  of  Eph.  ii.  8  f.  (comp.  also  10,  2  with  Eph.  v. 
21,  and  on  12,  1  comp.  No.  1,  note  2)  ;  11,  4  of  2  Thess.  iii. 
15.  Recollections  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  probably  lie  at 
the  foundation  of  the  exhortations  to  wives  and  deacons 
(chap.  4,  5),  since  the  use  of  1  Tim.  vi.  10,  7  in  4,  1,  and  of 
2  Tim.  iv.  10  in  9,  2,  is  undoubted  (comp.  also  12,  3  with 
1  Tim.  ii.  2,  and  the  polemic  against  the  /xaTcuoXoyia  2,  1). 

6.  The  use  of  the  apostolic  writings  in  the  Clementine 
Homily  is  very  scanty.  But  2  Clem.  1,  8  is  conditioned  in 
its  expression  by  Rom.  iv.  17.  The  passage  1  Cor.  ix.  24  f., 
certainly  lies  at  the  basis  of  7,  If.;  and  14,  2  even  pre- 
supposes an  acquaintance  on  the  part  of  the  readers  with 
details  such  as  Eph.  v.  23  ff.,  29  ff.  (comp.  also  19,  2: 
ea-KOTLcrfj.f.9a  TJJV  Siavomv  with  Eph.  iv.  18).  With  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  2  Clement  agrees  only  in  such  expressions  as  CTTI- 
$eocre/:?€ia,  KOCT/UKUI  eVi^u/ucu,  SitaKciv  rryv  Si/catcxrunp  and 
iav  KOL  dya)vt£e<r$ai.  The  TTKTTOS  yap  eoriv  6  eTrayyetXa/tevos, 
11,  6,  is  a  reminiscence  of  Heb.  x.  23.  The  tyavepwOr)  8e 
tir  lv}>a.Twv  TWV  ^/xcpuiv,  14,  2,  recalls  1  Pet.  i.  20;  and  the 
use  of  KaToXaXtlv  aXk-fjXwv  as  Christ's  prohibition,  4,  3,  is 
a  reminiscence  of  James  iv.  11  (comp.  also  the  exSexeo^cu 
Kap-rrov  taken  from  James  v.  7,  and  figuratively  applied  in 
20,  3.  The  use  of  a  single  passage  does  not  fully  appear  in 


52          ORIGIN  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

the  Didache,  unless  the  sign  and  wonder-working  Anti- 
christ has  its  origin  in  2  Thess.  ii.  9,  or  the  apira£t  2,  6,  ia 
added  to  the  irAcore'/cnys,  in  imitation  of  1  Cor.  v.  10.  We 
onlj  see  how  even  isolated  expressions  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ran  more  and  more  into  ecclesiastical  usage,  as  for 
example  the  p.apav  aOa.  fi-om  1  Cor.  xvi.  22  (10,  6,  comp.  the 
cVtflvfii/TiJs  from  x.  6  in  3, 3)  ;  Ka/coj^s  after  Bom.  i.  29  (2,  6)  ; 
Kevo'8o£os  from  Gal.  v.  26  (3,  5),  a«rx/>oXoyos  after  Col.  iii.  8 
(3,  3),  <£iAapyu/jos  and  ouj/iXdpyvpos  from  1  Tim.  iii.  3;  2  Tim. 
iii.  2  (3,  5;  15,  1),  opyiAos  and  aufluSijs  from  Titus  i.  7  (3,  2; 
6) ;  trapKLKal  firi.6vfji.Lai  from  1  Pet.  ii.  11  (1,  4)  ;  or  the  £vyov 
/?aora£eiv  from  Acts  xv.  10  (6,  2). 

7.  From  this  it  appears  that  the  Apostle  Paul's  most 
theological  work,  viz.  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  had  by 
no  means  the  greatest  influence  on  the  literature  of  the  post- 
apostolic  time.  Clement,  who  shows  a  closer  acquaintance 
with  it  than  any  other,  has  only  copied  from  it  a  passage 
that  has  no  theological  importance  whatever ;  while  Barnabas, 
Ignatius,  and  Polycarp  each  contain  but  one  reminiscence  of 
it,  the  only  one  in  the  Clementine  Homily  not  even  being 
certain.  The  first  Corinthian  Epistle  is  much  more  freely 
used  by  Clement  and  Ignatius,  and  certainly  by  Polycarp 
is  well  as  in  the  Clementine  Homily,  perhaps  also  in  the 
Didache,  while  no  trace  of  it  is  to  be  found  in  Barnabas. 
It  would  be  natural  to  suppose  that  where  the  first  Corinthian 
Epistle  was  known,  the  second  also  would  be  known,  but 
with  the  exception  of  one  doubtful  passage  in  Polycarp, 
no  trace  of  the  latter  appears.  It  seems  in  fact  to  have 
remained  the  private  possession  of  those  to  whom  it  was 
addressed,  until  the  time  when  the  written  memorials  of 
the  apostolic  era  were  assiduously  collected.  The  Oalatian 
Epistle  too  is  first  met  with  in  Ignatius  and  Polycarp.  Much 
better  known  is  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  which  perhaps 
iad  a  wider  currency  owing_  to  its  original  character  of  a 
circular  letter,  having  from  the  first  as  such  been  frequently 


OLDEST  TRACES  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES.    53 

copied ;  for  we  find  indications  of  an  acquaintance  with  it  in 
Clement,  Barnabas,  and  even  in  Hermas  who  seems  ignorant 
of  any  other  Pauline  Epistle.  It  is  undoubtedly  made  use  of 
in  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  and  even  in  the  Clementine  Homily. 
On  the  other  hand  we  find  but  slender  trace  in  Barnabas  of 
the  Colossian  Epistle  which  is  so  closely  allied  to  it.  That 
the  short  and  purely  personal  Epistle  to  Philemon  should 
nowhere  be  found  cannot  naturally  be  matter  for  surprise. 
The  Philippian  Epistle  is  without  doubt  already  known  to 
Clement,  and  is  used  by  Ignatius  and  Polycarp.  Echoes  of 
both  Thessalonian  Epistles  are  to  be  found  only  in  Ignatius ; 
of  the  second  we  find  traces  in  Polycarp  also  and  perhaps 
even  in  the  Didache.  But  the  Pastoral  Epistles  manifestly 
belong  to  those  that  are  best  known.  References  to  isolated 
passages  are  unmistakable  in  Clement,  Barnabas,  and  Poly- 
carp, in  the  first  certainly  to  1  Tim.  and  Titus,  in  the  second 
to  2  Tim.  and  Tit.,  and  in  the  third  to  the  two  Epistles  to 
Timothy ;  but  we  find  everywhere  an  echo  of  the  peculiar 
terminology  of  these  epistles,  in  Polycarp,  in  the  Clementine 
Homily,  and  even  in  the  Didache.  Of  the  writings  belonging 
to  the  primitive  apostolic  circle,  Clement  perhaps  makes 
most  use  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  of  which  echoes  are 
also  to  be  found  in  Hermas  and  the  Clementine  Homily. 
Hermas  also  freely  employs  the  Epistle  of  James,  of  which 
we  elsewhere  find  an  echo  in  the  Clementine  Homily  alone ; 
but  1  Peter,  which  was  without  doubt  already  known  to 
Clement,  is  above  all  freely  used  in  Polycarp.  According 
to  Eusebius  3,  39,  it  was  likewise  used  by  Papias ;  and  we 
find  an  echo  of  it  again  in  the  Clementine  Homily,  perhaps 
also  in  the  Didache.  Traces  of  the  second  Epistle  are  very 
uncertain  even  in  Hermas.  We  have  already  seen  that  an 
acquaintance  with  1  John  is  abundantly  manifest  (§  5,  7). 
That  no  trace  is  to  be  found  of  the  two  smaller  Epistles 
or  of  Jude,  cannot,  however,  appear  strange.  It  is  much 
more  remarkable  that  no  trace  of  acquaintance  with  the 


54  ORIGIN   OF    THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

Apocalypse  is  seen ;  while  the  gift  of  prophecy  was  still 
active  in  the  Church,  no  preponderating  weight  can  have 
been  attached  to  this  book.  From  what  source  Andreas 
and  Arethas  towards  the  end  of  the  fifth  century  can  have 
discovered  that  Papias  looked  npon  it  as  an  inspired  and 
authentic  production  (comp.  Rettig,  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1831,  4), 
we  do  not  know ;  but  for  his  chiliasm  he  must  have  ap- 
pealed to  apostolic  authority,  if  we  may  rely  on  Eusebins, 
who  (H.  E.,  3,  39)  conjectures  that  he  grossly  misunderstood 
in  a  literal  sense  what  was  figuratively  meant  in  the  apostolic 
narratives.  That  Eusebius  here  refers  to  the  Apocalypse 
of  John,  which  he  did  not  look  upon  as  apostolic,  is  certainly 
very  improbable;  but  from  words  of  the  Lord,  such  as  that 
quoted  by  Papias,  according  to  Ireneeus,  Adv.  Hcer.,  v.  33, 3  f., 
he  may  at  least  have  inferred  an  earthly  kingdom  of  glory. 
On  the  other  hand  he  certainly  drew  its  thousand  years 
of  continuance  from  ApTc.  xx.  1  f. 

§  7.    THE  GOSPEL  CA.NON. 

1.  Even  in  Justin  the  tfartyr  the  authority  of  the  Lord 
exclusively  was  essentially  on  a  par  with  that  of  the  pro- 
phetic word  (§  5,  4,  note  2).  It  is  always  by  the  words  of 
the  Lord,  along  with  Old  Testament  Scripture,  that  he 
supports  his  utterances;  but  for  the  sake  of  proving  his 
words,  he  attaches  much  greater  importance  than  was  formerly 
done  to  the  details  of  the  history  of  the  lifo  of  Jesus,  deriving 
both  methods  from  the  AiropvyvovcvfuiTa  TWV  dirooroXwi'.1  This 

1  Thus,  for  the  announcement  by  the  angel  of  the  miraculous  con- 
ception and  birth  of  the  Virgin,  he  expressly  appeals  to  ot  d*-o/i»"W*o»''tf- 
ffavres  trivra.  T&,  irtpl  rod  ffwrrjpot  TJHWV,  Apol.  i.  33,  and  for  the  institution 
of  the  Last  Supper,  to  the  tradition  of  the  Apostles,  Iv  roit  -ytvonlvois  v*-' 
airruv  iirofuniiiMVcuno.ffiv  A  KaXetrcu  ewryyAio  (i.  66).  In  the  Dialogue 
with  Tryphon  we  read  (chap.  88)  that  the  Apostles  of  Christ  had  written 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  had  descended  on  Him  like  a  dove ;  and  in  chap.  100 
the  saying  of  the  Lord,  xal  iv  r$  tuayytXiy  81  y^ypavrai  fliruif  (Matt.  xi. 
27),  is  introduced,  followed  by  the  statement  that  it  is  written  in  the 


THE   GOSPEL   CANON.  55 

veiy  designation  of  the  Gospels,  reminding  ns  of  Xenophon'p 
Memorabilia,  shows  that  they  are  not  regarded  as  sacred 
writings,  like  the  prophetic  books,  but  as  primitive  historical 
documents,  whose  credibility  is  established  by  their  origin.2 
But  it  is  by  no  means  the  literary  situation  in  a  work  con- 
cerned with  Jews  and  Gentiles  that  leads  Justin  to  go  back 
to  this  authentication  of  Scripture  documents,  but  the  fact 
that  the  generation  which  had  heard  the  tradition  of  the 
life  and  words  of  Jesus  from  the  mouth  of  the  Apostles,  had 
gradually  died  out.  The  clearest  proof  of  this  is  that  from 
him  we  first  learn  that  the  dTrojuvTy/xovev/Aara  of  the  Apostles 
or  the  writings  of  the  prophets  were  read  at  the  Sunday 
assemblies  (Apol.  i.  67).  This  reading  of  evangelical 
writings  in  the  public  services  was  without  doubt  originally 
intended  only  to  take  the  place  of  the  oral  evangelical 
tradition  (the  £oiio-a  <j><avrj  of  Papias),  that  was  gradually 
dying  out  or  becoming  uncertain,  but  which  had  always 
been  a  part  of  Divine  worship.8  Even  the  Jew  Tryphon 

airo/JU>ri/j.ovev/j.a.Ta  T$V  dirooroXwj'  avrov  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  To 
these  Apomnemoneumata  Justin  appeals  twelve  times  before  chap.  107, 
in  different  ways,  for  facts  in  the  life  of  Christ,  and  four  times  for  sayings 
of  Christ  (Dial.  103,  105,  107). 

2  So  little  are  these  writings  placed  on  a  par  with  those  of  the  pro- 
phets, that  Justin  expressly  says,  he  believes  their  authors,  because  the 
prophetic  Spirit  Bays  the  same  things  as  they  did  (Apol.  i.  33,  comp. 
Dial.  53).  For  this  very  reason  the  ytypairrai  with  which  in  Dial.  49  an 
historical  notice  from  Matt.  xvii.  13  is  introduced,  cannot  possibly  be 
used  in  a  technical  sense,  but  only  as  the  yeyp.  ev  r£  evayy.,  Dial.  100, 

8  It  now  appears  why  in  the  Clementine  Homily  (2  Clem.  8,  5)  a  say 
ing  of  the  Lord  is  for  the  first  time  introduced  with  \tyei  6  ictpios  cv 
T<J5  fvayye\t<f,  and  consequently  a  writing  in  which  words  of  the  Lord 
occur  is  designated  as  the  Gospel ;  so  also  in  the  Didache  (8,  2 :  <l>s 
€Kt\fwev  6  Ki'ipios  fv  T<j5  efmyye\i(j}  avrov).  Moreover,  the  fact  that  it  calls 
upon  its  readers  to  do  /card  T&  S6y/j.a  TOV  euayye\lov  (11,  3),  or  wj  %xeTt  ^" 
T<£  eva.yye\t<i>  TOV  Kvplov  i]/nuv  (15,  4,  comp.  15,  3),  without  citing  par- 
ticular passages,  shows  that  the  readers  were  acquainted  and  familiar 
with  the  contents  of  such  a  work  (frorri  the  reading  at  worship).  In  the 
genitive  of  object  we  see  plainly  how  the  name  first  passed  over  from 
the  oral  preaching  of  Christ  (de  Christo)  to  v/ritings  where  such  preach* 
ing  was  formulated  (comp.  §  5,  6,  note  2). 


56  ORIGIN   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   CANON. 

was  perplexed  about  the  irapayyeX/xara  of  the  Christians 
cv  T<3  Aeyo/itVw  euayyeXiw,  in  reading  the  commands  of  the 
Lord  contained  therein  (Dial.  10,  18).  It  was  only  as  a 
consequence  of  the  reading  of  evangelical  writings  at  Divine 
service,  that  it  first  became  usual  to  appeal  expressly  to 
them. 

While  it  had  formerly  been  taken  for  granted  as  a  matter  of  course 
that  the  apostolic  memorials  to  which  Justin  refers  were  oar  four  Gospels, 
Stroth  first  thought  he  discovered  in  Justin's  citations  nothing  more 
than  fragments  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the-Hebrews,  while  Eichhorn 
looked  upon  them  as  an  elaboration  of  the  primitive  document,  and  Paulus 
as  a  harmony  of  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke  ;  but  these  hypotheses 
may  be  regarded  as  set  aside  by  the  exhaustive  researches  of  Winer  and 
Olshausen.4  The  question  was  again  raised  by  Credner,  who  in  his 
Bertrdge  zur  Einleitung  (i.,  Halle,  1832)  though  admitting  that  Justin 
was  acquainted  with  our  four  Gospels,  yet  represents  him  as  having  mainly 
used  a  Jewish  Christian  Gospel,  that  of  Peter,  which  he  thinks  he  has 
discovered  in  Dial.  106.  But  although  he  found  favour  with  Mayerhoff 
and  others,  yet  the  refutations  of  Bindemann  (Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1842, 
2)  and  Semisch  (die  apostolischen  Denkwiirdigkeiten  des  Slartyrer  Justin, 
Hamb.  and  Gotha,  1848)  may  be  regarded  as  having  re-established  the 
current  view  on  a  firmer  footing.  In  any  case  de  Wette,  Beuss  and 
Bleek  only  admit  the  use  of  the  Hebrew  or  Petrine  Gospel  in  conjunction 
with  our  four.  The  question  was  taken  up  for  the  third  time  by  the 
Tubingen  school,  which,  consistently  with  its  fundamental  view  brought 
our  four  canonical  Gospels  as  low  down  as  possible,  regarding  them  as 
the  last  deposit  of  an  older  Gospel  literature,  whose  usage  in  the  Churches 
had  only  been  displaced  by  the  Catholic  Church  in  its  development. 
Hence  Schwegler,  in  his  nachapostol.  Zeitalter  (1846),  went  beyond  Cred- 
ner, denying  to  Justin  all  knowledge  of  the  canonical  Gospels,  and  main- 

4  Stroth's  hypothesis  in  Eichhorn' s  Repertorium,  Bd.  i.,  1777,  found  great 
approbation  among  the  leaders  of  rationalism,  such  as  Semler,  Weber, 
Roscnmuller,  Wegscheider,  because  it  harmonized  with  their  tendency 
to  point  out  the  late  formation  of  the  Canon  and  the  priority  of  heretical 
Gospels  ;  while  Eichhorn's  view  commended  itself  in  connection  with  his 
hypothesis  of  a  primitive  document.  The  third  has  the  greatest  follow- 
ing. Comp.  H.  E.  G.  Paulus,  "  Ob  das  Evang.  Just.'s  das  Evang.  nach 
den  Hebraern  sei?"  in  his  exeget.  krit.  Abh.t  Tiibingen,  1784.  Grata, 
krit.  Unter$uchungen  ilbcr  Just.'t  apostol.  Denkw.,  Stuttgart,  1814. 
Against  all  three,  comp.  Winer,  Just.  Mart.  Evang.  Canon,  mum  fuitte 
ottenditur,  Lips.,  1819.  Olshausen,  Echtheit  der  vier  kanonitchrn  Evan- 
gelien,  Konigsb.,  1823 


THE   GOSPEL  CANON.  57 

taining  that  he  used  only  the  Petrine  Gospel  which  is  identical  with  the 
Hebrew  one.  But  Hilgenfeld,  who  at  first  advocated  a  prevailing  use  of 
the  Petrine  Gospel  which  he  regarded  as  transitional  between  Matthew 
and  Luke  and  as  the  work  on  which  our  Mark  is  based  (hrit.  Unter- 
suchungen  iiber  die  Evang.  Justin's,  etc.,  Halle  1850,  comp.  on  the  other 
hand  Eitschl  in  the  TheoL  Jahrb.,  1851),  though  slow  to  admit  the  use 
of  our  four  Gospels,  was  all  the  more  decided  in  favour  of  this  view; 
while  Volkmar  (Ueber  Justin  und  sein  Verhdltniss  zu  unseren  Evang., 
Zurich,  1853,  comp.  TheoL  Jahrb.,  1855)  could  only  fall  back  on  the 
theory  that  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  made  use  of  Justin,  and 
Scholten  (die  altesten  Zeugnisse  betr.  die  Schriften  des  N.T.,  Bremen, 
1867)  held  fast  to  the  older  position  of  the  school.  Finally  Credner,  in 
his  Gesch.  des  Kanon,  represents  the  Petrine  Gospel  employed  by  Justin 
as  a  growth  out  of  an  older  attempt  to  harmonize  evangelical  history 
according  to  the  mind  and  spirit  of  Peter.  Engelhardt  (das  Christen- 
thum  Justins  des  Mdrtyrers,  Erlangen,  1878)  makes  Justin  employ  a 
harmony  of  our  first  three  Gospels  compiled  for  ecclesiastical  use. 

2.  However  natural  it  may  be  to  assume  that  Justin 
made  use  of  an  extra-canonical,  heretical,  or  apocryphal 
Gospel,  we  find  no  adequate  reason  for  such  assumption  if  we 
take  into  account  the  growing  insignificance  of  the  features 
which  cannot  be  traced  back  to  our  Gospels,  in  proportion 
to  the  rich  material  which  leads  to  their  present  form ; 1  it 
is  very  doubtful  whether  he  made  use  even  of  the  Acts  of 
Pilate  which  he  mentions  in  Apol.  i.  35,  48,  or  was  only 
acquainted  with  them,  or  perhaps  had  only  heard  of  them. 
The  idea  that  Justin  made  use  of  a  single  Gospel  is  abso- 

1  Features  such  as  the  birth  of  Jesus  in  the  cave,  the  enumeration  of 
His  works  as  a  carpenter  and  the  fiery  appearance  at  His  baptism  in  the 
Jordan  (Dial.  78,  88),  are  traditional  explanations  of  the  Gospel  narrative 
which  have  passed  over  into  various  later  Gospels,  to  some  extent  in  a 
different  form.  But  the  assumption  that  the  irbrra,  Apol.  i.  33  (No.  1, 
note  1),  excludes  the  use  of  oral  tradition  along  with  what  had  been 
written,  rests  on  a  straining  of  the  letter  that  is  quite  at  variance  with 
the  context.  The  tying  of  the  ass  to  the  vine  (Apol.  i.  32)  is  certainly  a 
free  Justinian  colouring,  just  as  the  imputation  of  magic  arts  (Dial.  69) 
is  his  explanation  of  Matt.  ix.  34.  To  supplement  the  voice  of  God  at 
the  baptism  according  to  Ps.  ii.  7  (Dial.  88,  103),  was  so  natural  that 
it  required  no  Scriptural  precedent,  and  the  only  unknown  word  of 
Christ  (Dial.  48),  if  it  does  not  proceed  from  oral  tradition,  is  perhaps 
nothing  but  a  condensation  of  Luke  xvii.  34-37  (comp.  the  contraction  of 
Matt.  v.  22  in  Apol.  i.  16). 


58  ORIGIN   OP  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   CANON. 

lutely  excluded  by  the  fact  that  he  says  of  the 
p.ovevp.a.Ta.,  &  KaXftrai  euayyc'Aia  (Apol.  i.  66)  and  a 
roil'  aTTOOToXoDv  aurou  Kal  TWV  e»ceiVois  Tra.paKo\ovOrja-anTwv  awre- 
raxOai  (Dial.  103),  in  spite  of  an  occasional  reference  to  the 
Gospel  (Dial.  100;  corap.  10).  The  freedom  with  which  the 
words  of  the  Lord  are  variously  reproduced  corresponds 
entirely  to  what  we  have  observed  in  the  older  documents  of 
the  second  century  (§  5,  5),  with  this  exception  only,  that 
along  with  Justin's  intentional  going  back  to  written  Gospels, 
more  comprehensive,  verbal  citations  also  occur.  But  the 
circumstance  that  what  is  taken  from  the  Gospel  narrative 
is  reproduced  quite  freely  and  without  dependence  on  the 
letter,  only  shows  how  far  Justin  is  from  holding  the  Gospel 
writings,  as  such,  to  b«  sacred.  And  for  this  very  reason  the 
natural  mixing  of  traits  or  sayings  of  the  Lord  taken  from 
different  Gospels  cannot  point  to  the  use  of  a  harmony  of  the 
Gospels.3  It  is  entirely  consistent  with  the  facts  of  the  pre- 

2  It  is  not  impossible  to  conceive  that  attempts  should  have  been  made 
even  before  Tatian,  such  as  Harnack  thought  was  exemplified  in  the 
words  of  the  Lord  quoted  in  the  Didache  (1,  3,  4,  5;  16,  1),  which  are 
pat  together  or  intermixed  oat  of  Matt,  and  Luke,  constituting  the  use  of 
Mark's  Gospel  enlarged  out  of  Luke's  (comp.  No.  1,  note  3,§  5, 6),  since  the 
ecclesiastical  reading  of  written  Gospels  might  in  its  beginning  very  easily 
lead  to  such  procedure.  But  even  wLere  these  mixed  citations  reappear 
in  Justin  himself  or  in  other  authors,  they  neither  show  the  use  of  a 
Gospel  harmony  nor  that  of  an  uncanonical  Gospel,  since  such  mixings 
were  already  incorporated  in  oral  tradition  or  were  familiar  to  a  writer, 
and  might  pass  over  from  him  to  others.  But  this  supposition  is  ex- 
cluded by  the  fact  that  many  of  these  apparent  text-mixings,  even  where 
they  recur,  are  more  or  less  different,  and  that  others  are  too  unim- 
portant or  too  much  connected  with  extraneous  matter  to  admit  of  being 
traced  back  to  designed  harmonizing.  Comp.  e.  gr.  the  citation  of 
Matt.  iii.  16  (Dial.  49),  which  shows  an  alteration  of  the  parallels  that 
is  quite  unimportant,  or  a  citation  of  Luke  xii,  4  (Apol.  i.  19)  evincing  a 
borrowing  from  Matthew  alone,  and  the  commingling  of  Luke  xiii.  26  in 
Matt.  vii.  22  (Apol.  i.  16;  Din).  76).  It  is  certain  that  an  intermixing 
like  that  of  Matt.  xxiv.  5  with  vii.  16  (Dial.  85)  is  the  result  of  quotation 
from  memory,  as  well  as  combinations  such  as  that  of  Matt.  iv.  10  with 
Mark  xii.  80  (Luke  x.  27)  or  of  Luke  xiii.  28  with  Matt.  xiii.  42  (Apol. 
i.  16). 


THE   GOSPEL   CANON.  59 

Justinian  time  (§  5,  6)  that  the  great  mass  of  Justin's  cita- 
tions always  proceeds  from  the  Gospel  of  Matthew.  But 
it  is  our  Greek  Gospel  with  which  Justin  is  acquainted  and 
which  he  uses  respecting  the  history  of  the  wise  men  (Dial. 
78),  down  to  the  invention  of  the  stealing  of  the  dead  body 
(Dial.  108),  since  he  makes  Jesus  Himself  send  the  disciples 
for  the  ass  with  the  colt  (Dial.  53 ;  comp.  Matt.  xxi.  2).3 
But  besides  these  allusions  we  find  also  a  series  of  the  Lord's 
words  occurring  only  in  Luke  (Dial.  76,  comp.  Luke  x.  19  ; 
Apol.  i.  17,  comp.  Luke  xii.  48 ;  Dial.  105,  comp.  Luke  xxiii. 
46),  or  such  words  reproduced  in  a  form  specially  character- 
istic of  Luke  (Apol.  i.  15,  16,  comp.  Luke  v.  32,  vi.  27  f., 
xxix.  34;  i.  19,  comp.  Luke  xii.  4,  xviii.  27;  i.  66,  comp 
Luke  xxii.  19;  Dial.  81,  comp.  Luke  xx.  36).  Justin  is 
familiar  with  the  narrative  parts  of  Luke's  Gospel,  from  the 
history  of  the  childhood,  which  he  always  interweaves  with 
Matthew's  account,  down  to  the  history  of  the  passion,  from 
which  he  quotes  the  sending  of  Jesus  to  Herod  (Dial.  103, 
comp.  Luke  xxiii.  7  f.),  and  the  history  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, from  which  he  repeatedly  quotes  what  the  disciples 
had  learnt  from  Scripture  (Apol.  i.  50,  Dial.  106,  comp. 
Luke  xxiv.  25  ff.,  44  ff.).  He  is  even  acquainted  with  the 
passage  of  the  bloody  sweat  (Luke  xxii.  44),  from  the 
Apomnemoneumata,  of  which  he  here  (Dial.  103)  takes 
occasion  to  say  that  they  proceed  not  from  the  Apostles 
alone,  but  also  VTTO  rwv  exctvots  TrapaKoXovOrj(rdvT<av  (Luke  i.  3). 
It  is  plain  that  beside  these  two  Gospels,  that  of  Mark,  which 
has  so  little  that  is  peculiar,  can  scarcely  come  into  consi- 
deration ;  but  all  doubt  of  acquaintance  with  it  is  excluded 
by  the  account  of  the  naming  of  Zebedee's  sons  (Mark  iii. 
16  f.),  which  is  expressly  traced  back  to  the  Apomnemo- 

8  Comp.  also  the  citations  from  this  Gospel  deviating  from  the  funda- 
mental text  as  well  as  from  the  LXX.,  which  are  occasionally  introduced 
with  the  same  formula  as  in  Matthew  ;  the  many  sayings  of  the  Lord 
known  only  to  the  first  Gospel,  or  forms  of  such  sayings  peculiar  to  it 
alone,  even  to  the  )3a<rtXe£a  TUV  ovpavwv  and  the  irarfy>  6  o&pdvios. 


GO          ORIGIN  OP  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

neumata  of  Peter  (Dial.  106),  i.e.  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark.* 
It  is  therefore  beyond  all  doubt  that  Justin  knew  and  em- 
ployed our  three  Gospels. 

3.  Since  the  researches  of  Thoma  respecting  Justin's 
literary  relation  to  John's  Gospel  (Zeitschr.  f.  wiss.  Theol., 
1875,  3,  4),  the  opinion  that  Justin  was  not  yet  acquainted 
with  the  fourth  Gospel,  once  so  obstinately  adhered  to  by  the 
Tubingen  school,  must  be  regarded  as  definitely  set  aside. 
Unquestionably  his  whole  doctrine  of  the  Logos  has  its 
origin  in  John's  Gospel ; 1  from  this  narrative  he  takes  the 
words  of  the  Baptist  whom  he  too  calls  simply  John  (Dial. 
88,  comp.  John  i.  20,  23),  the  account  that  Jesus  healed  the 
man  who  was  afflicted  ex  yevenjs  (Apol.  i.  22  ;  Dial.  69  ;  comp. 
John  ix.  1),  and  that  He  was  reviled  as  a  XaoVXavos  (Dial.  69, 
comp.  Gosp.  vii.  12).2  It  is  true  he  quotes  only  one  saying 


4  This  Gospel  too  certainly  belongs  to  those  that  wore  composed  by  the 
irapaKo\ov9^ffavret  of  the  Apostles  (Dial.  103 :  ffwrerdx^ai)  5  but  Justin 
plainly  knows  that  it  stands  in  close  relation  to  a  single  Apostle,  and 
that  it  does  in  fact  contain  the  arofj.vrinovfu/j.a.Ta.  of  Peter,  even  though 
set  down  in  writing  by  an  apostolic  disciple.  All  critical  twistings  of 
the  text  of  this  passage  are  therefore  useless,  while  it  is  impossible  and  at 
variance  with  the  whole  usage  of  Juatin  that  oi/roO  should  refer  to  Christ; 
but  all  attempts  to  find  here  a  particular  heretical  Petrine  Gospel  (No.  1) 
are  frustrated  by  the  fact  that  here  and  here  alone  reference  is  made  to  a 
notice  occurring  only  in  Mark.  Moreover  the  assertion  that  Jesus  was  a 
TCKTWV  vo/utfuevos  (Dial.  83)  rests  on  Mark  vi.  3,  and  the  repeated  state- 
ment as  to  the  place  where  the  disciples  found  the  foal  tied  (Apol.  i.  32  ; 
Dial.  53)  are  based  on  Mark  xi.  4. 

1  Justin  treats  of  the  f^ovoytv^t  (Dial.  105),  who  was  with  the  Father 
before  all  created  beings,  and  by  whom  everything  was  created  (Apol. 
ii.  C),  the  ffapKoiroirjOtis  (Apol.  i.  82,  66)  who  gives  living -water  to 
the  heart  (Dial.  114,  comp.  69),  of  the  •yryeypwilror  OVK  l£  avffpwirelov 
(nr^p/uxros  dXV  tic  6t\j/Ma.ros  ffeov  (Dial.  63  ;  comp.  John  i.  13).  He  says, 
that  through  Him  ret  roC  irar/>or  iiriyvuvai  Tarra  is  given  to  us  (Dial. 
121),  that  through  Him  we  iiri  rov  war^pa  irpo<r\upQviJLtv  (Dial.  17)  and 
now  wpoffKVfovfKf  \6y<?  xal  A.\i)6tla  (Apol.  i.  6). 

3  Comp.  Apol.  i.  63,  according  to  which  he  convinced  the  Jews  wj  offre 
T&V  wart  pa  offre  rbv  vl6v  tyvuffa*  (John  viii.  19),  Dial.  106,  according  to 
which  he  knew  rbv  vartpa.  O.UTOU  vavra.  vapl'x.eiv  ai/r<p  (John  xiii.  3),  and 
the  reference  to  circumcision  taking  place  on  the  Sabbath  (Dial.  12 ; 


THE   GOSPEL  CANON.  61 

of  the  Lord  from  this  Gospel,  which  is  altered  by  virtue  of 
its  context  and  is  mixed  up  with  a  phrase  from  Matthew 
(Apol.  i.  61)  ;  nevertheless  the  allusion  to  the  misunder- 
standing of  Nicodemus,  by  which  it  is  followed,  shows 
beyond  doubt  that  John  iii.  3  f.,  was  in  the  mind  of  the 
Apologist.  But  when  Justin  tries  to  uphold  the  doctrines  of 
the  pre-existence  and  divinity  of  Christ  against  opponents, 
because  he  must  follow  TOIS  Si'  avrov  SiSax^acri  appealing  to 
the  Apomnemoneumata  (Dial.  48,  105)  in  favour  of  the  in- 
carnation of  the  fj.ovoy€vr)<;  T<a  irarpl  and  of  the  l£  avrov  Xoyos, 
he  must  have  counted  John's  Gospel  among  these  books, 
especially  as  Dial.  103  points  out  that  more  than  one  of  them 
proceeded  directly  from  Apostles.  But  it  is  a  remarkable 
fact  that  in  speaking  of  Christ's  higher  essence,  he  never 
quotes  His  utterances  respecting  Himself  contained  in 
John,  but  only  refers  to  Matt.  xi.  27  (Dial.  130)  ;  and  that 
much  freer  use  is  made  throughout  of  the  first  and  third 
Gospels  than  of  the  fourth.  Yet  this  only  leads  to  the  con- 
clusion that  Justin  still  belonged  to  the  time  when  the  use 
of  the  older  Gospels,  especially  that  of  Matthew,  was  far 
more  extended  than  that  of  John,  a  time  whose  knowledge 
of  the  sayings  and  history  of  the  Lord  had  been  formed 
essentially  on  the  basis  of  common  tradition  proceeding 
from  them  (comp.  §  5,  7).  Whatever  was  drawn  from  his 
closer  employment  of  Luke's  Gospel,  could  amalgamate  more 
readily  with  these  than  what  he  read  in  John's  Gospel. 
This  procedure  might  promote  and  determine  the  develop- 
ment of  his  theological  views,  but  it  could  not  enlarge  the 
circle  of  the  Lord's  words  with  which  he  was  familiar. 
That  he  consciously  distinguished  between  the  older  Gospels 
as  historical  documents  and  the  fourth  as  a  doctrinal  work, 

comp.  John  vii.  22  f.).  Comp.  also  the  form  of  the  citation  from 
Zechariah  xii.  10  with  John  xix.  37  (Apol.  i.  52).  Even  the  0coO  rticva. 
a\i)6ivb.  KoXofyeOa  Kal  t<Tnev  (Dial.  123)  reminds  us  of  1  John  iii.  1 ;  and 
the  statement  that  Christ  became  man  tirl  /caraXwret  TUV  Sai/j.ovluv  (Apol, 
ii.  6)  is  a  reminiscence  of  1  John  iii.  8. 


62  ORIGIN  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

must  be  decidedly  rejected ;  but  the  fact  that  the  image  of 
the  historical  life  and  teaching  of  Christ,  mirrored  in  the 
Church,  was  formed  from  the  older  Gospels,  is  still  decisive 
for  his  use  of  the  Apomnemoneuraata. 

4.  In  proportion  as  Justin  goes  back  to  the  written  memo- 
rials of  the  Apostles  for  the  words  and  history  of  the  Lord, 
does  his  appeal  to  the  oral  preaching  of  the  Apostles  become 
prominent.  He  continually  relates  how  these  latter  had 
fallen  away  and  become  scattered  in  consequence  of  Christ's 
death  on  the  cross,  until  the  risen  Saviour  appeared  to  them 
and  convinced  them  that  His  sufferings  were  foretold  in  the 
Scriptures  (Apol.  i.  67 ;  Dial.  53,  76,  106) ;  and  he  tells  how, 
armed  with  Divine  SITO/AIS  proceeding  from  Him  (Apol.  i.  50; 
Dial.  42),  they  went  out  from  Jerusalem  into  all  the  world 
as  His  ambassadors  (Apol.  i.  35,  45,  49),  to  preach  the 
crucified  and  exalted  Christ  as  the  fulfilment  of  all  pro- 
phecy. l  But  with  their  preaching  of  Christ  was  associated 
the  preaching  of  His  doctrine  (Apol.  i.  40,  42)  or  the  word 
of  God  (Apol.  i.  39,  Dial.  100),  i.e.  of  the  new  Divine  law 
given  by  Him,  for  which  reason  faith  in  their  teaching  was 
always  followed  by  a  change  of  mind  and  life,  the  new  cir- 
cumcision of  the  heart  (Apol.  i.  53 ;  Dial.  114).  This  by 
no  means  refers  simply  to  a  repetition  of  His  words  from 
memory,  since  the  Divine  power  of  Christ  with  which  they 
were  endowed,  empowered  them  to  regulate  anew  the  life  of 
the  Gentiles,  the  more  minute  details  respecting  the  rite  of 

1  In  the  fact  that  they  are  repeatedly  designated  as  the  Twelve 
(Apol.  i.  39  ;  Dial.  42)  Hilgenlield,  with  the  whole  Tubingen  school,  in- 
correctly finds  an  antithesis  to  the  Apostle  Paul,  since  it  is  obviously 
important  in  Justin's  view  to  authenticate  the  origin  of  the  apostolic 
preaching  in  its  immediate  connection  with  the  history  of  Jesus.  Th.  e 
descriptions  plainly  proceed  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostle*,  which  is  also 
used  as  a  primitive  document  (comp.  Ayil.  i.  50  with  Acts  i.  8,  ii.  3),  a 
knowledge  of  which  is  already  attested  by  the  application  of  Psalm  ii. 
to  Herod  and  Pilate  (Apol.  i.  40,  comp.  Acts  iv.  24)  and  many  other 
echoes  (comp.  Apul.  i.  49  with  Acts  xiii.  27,  48  ;  Dial.  16  with  Acts 
vii.  52 ;  Dial.  36,  76  with  Acts  zxvi.  22,  f .). 


THE    GOSPEL   CANON.  63 

baptism  being  also  traced  back  to  their  teaching  (Apol.  i. 
61).  Their  word  which  teaches  the  true  tfeoo-ejSeto,  to  the 
Gentiles,  may  now  be  put  directly  on  a  par  with  the  VO/AOS 
(Dial.  100).  It  is  the  same  tfxavrj  TOV  Oeov,  which  speaks 
through  them  as  formerly  through  the  prophets,  and  leads 
to  the  renunciation  of  everything  worldly  (Dial.  119).  But 
the  Church  still  knows  itself  to  be  in  full  possession  of  this 
living,  oral  preaching  of  the  Apostles  (comp.  §  6,  2) .  There 
is  the  less  occasion  to  go  back  to  the  early  written  record  of 
it,  since  an  appeal  to  the  Old  Testament  and  to  the  complete 
agreement  between  it  and  the  Apomnemoneumata  now 
largely  plundered  for  their  historical  contents  (comp.  No.  1), 
really  suffices  for  the  refutation  of  the  errors  that  had 
cropped  up  in  the  Church  itself.  The  only  apostolic  writing 
besides  these,  mentioned  in  Justin,  is  the  Apocalypse  of  the 
Apostle  John,  but  it  does  not  come  into  consideration  on 
account  of  the  apostolic  teaching  contained  in  it,  but  on 
account  of  its  prophecy  of  the  thousand  years'  reign  (Dial. 
81). 2  There  cannot  therefore  be  any  question  as  yet  of  a 
collection  of  apostolic  Epistles  or  of  their  canonicity  or 
equality  with  the  0.  T.  Scriptures,  or  even  with  the  Gospels. 

It  is  certain,  notwithstanding,  that  Justin  is  also  acquainted  with 
Pauline  Epistles  and  is  influenced  by  them.  It  is  characteristic  through- 
out that  what  he  has  chiefly  adopted  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is 
the  application  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Christian  sense,  as  appears 
from  the  many  citations  common  to  both  in  their  form,  connection  and 
application  (comp.  Roin.  iii.  11-17  and  Dial.  27  ;  ix.  27  ff.,  and  Dial. 


3  Only  because  the  chief  of  the  demons  is  here  termed  o0«, 
S«i/3oXoj  (Apoc.  xx.  1  f.  10),  does  Justin  appeal  to  TO.  wtre 
na.ro.  (Apol.  i.  28) ;  and  the  free  use  of  the  citation  from  Zech.  xii.  10  in 
Dial.  14  has  a  manifest  ring  of  Apoc.  i.  7,  etc.  Justin's  passage  respect- 
ing the  Apocalypse  of  John  has  by  Bettig  (iiber  das  erweisli ch  dlteste  Zeuijn. 
f.  d.  Echth.  d.  Apok.,  Leipz.,  1829)  been  declared  not  to  be  genuine,  on 
quite  untenable  grounds.  Respecting  Justin's  relation  to  Paul,  comp. 
Otto,  in  the  Zeitsch.fiir  hist.  Theol.,  1842,  2;  1843,  1;  Thoma  in  the 
Zeitsch.  filr  wiss.  Theol.,  1875,  3,  4;  respecting  his  relation  to  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  Overbeck,  ibid.,  1872,  3. 


64          ORIGIN  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

65 ;  x.  16  and  Dial  42 ;  xi.  2  ff.,  and  Dial.  89.  46 ;  xiv.  11  and  ApoL  i.  62), 
and  the  repeated  statements  respecting  the  justification  of  Abraham  as 
the  fattier  of  believing  Gentiles,  taken  from  Bom.  iv.  (Dial.  11 ;  23 ;  119). 
The  only  allusion  of  a  different  character  occurs  in  ApoL  i.  14,  Mfapu 
ffeov  6  Xiryot  avrou,  which  recalls  Bom.  i.  16,  the  iv  awti^yeffif  ^xfyeui 
ToCra  di/fidtfovrat  dXX?)Xo«  Hwcp  tpydfovTai,  Dial.  93,  which  recalls  Bom. 
ii.  15  (comp.  also  the  recurring  datfieia.  Kal  diiula  and  dvaroMyirrot 
from  Bom.  ii.  18,  20).  From  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  are 
taken  the  0.  T.  tjpe  of  the  passover  lamb  (Dial.  Ill :  ty  yap  TO  rdax*  o 
Xptorij,  o  rvOds  and  Dial.  14 :  ra  iraXcuA  T)}J  KaKfy  fi>A»7*  tpyo-i  comp. 
1  Cor.  v.  7,  8),  the  image  of  the  body  and  its  many  members  (Dial.  42, 
comp.  1  Cor.  xii.).  The  image  of  the  seed-corn  for  the  resurrection  with 
the  d<f>6apfflav  tvSfoaffOai  (ApoL  i.  19,  comp.  1  Cor.  xv.),  the  avdfu>i)(rit  TOV 
rdOovs,  Christ  Traptowicev  (Dial.  41,  70,  comp.  1  Cor.  xi.),  and  the  trxiff^ra. 
xal  alpe<reis  (Dial.  35,  comp.  1  Cor.  xi.  18  f.).  Comp.  also  the  antithesis 
of  the  <ro<t>ia  dvOpuircia  and  the  StVautj  ffeov,  1  Cor.  ii.  5  and  ApoL  i.  60. 
On  the  other  hand  we  find  no  trace  even  here  of  the  second  Corinthian 
Epistle,  since  the  ^evSairioroXot,  Dial.  35,  cannot  in  itself  be  regarded  as 
such.  Again,  the  citations  in  Dial.  95,  96  of  the  curse  of  the  law  and  of 
him  who  hangeth  upon  a  tree  specially  reminds  us,  by  their  form  and 
application  to  the  work  of  redemption,  of  the  Galatian  Epistle  (iii.  10, 13). 
The  same  thing  applies  to  the  citation  of  the  Ephesian  Epistle  (iv.  8, 
comp.  Dial.  39 ;  87),  and  to  the  application  of  the  type  of  circumcision 
in  the  Colossian  Epistle  (ii.  11,  f.,  comp.  Dial.  41 ;  43),  of  which  we  are 
also  reminded  by  jr/wriro/coj  irdo-Tjj  icrlaeus  and  his  vpb  vdvTuv  elvai  (i.  16 
i,  comp.  Dial.  85  ;  138 ;  96).  The  second  Epistle  to  the  Thestalonians  is 
recalled  by  the  at>9pwiros  rrjt  dvofj-iat  and  TT?S  dwotrrairlat  (Dial.  32 ;  110, 
comp.  2  Thess.  ii.  3,  7)  and  the  dlxas  rlvei*  Sia  iri»/>6j  aluvlov  (ApoL  L 
17,  comp.  2  Thess.  i.  8  f.),  while  the  only  reminiscence  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Philippiaru  (ii.  7,  etc.,  comp.  Dial.  134 :  i8ov\evffc  ical  r^v  fUxpt 
ffravpou  SovXclav  6  X^IO-TOS)  is  very  uncertain.  We  are  reminded  of  the 
Pattoral  Epistles  by  the  frequent  expression  iiri^dveta  TOV  'Kpirrov,  as  well 
as  ra  rijt  a-Xd^jj  irvt\>na.Ta.  Kal  Satftovia  (Dial.  7,  comp.  1  Tim.  iv.  1)  and 
4  XP7?0'7'0'7"'?1  Kal  i)  <pi\avOputria  TOV  Otov  (Dial.  34,  comp.  Tit.  iii.  4).  In 
imitation  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  Christ  is  frequently  called 
dv6ffro\ot  (iii.  1),  perhaps  also  rpuroroKot  and  &yye\ot  (i.  6,  9),  most 
probably  6  KOT&  rrjv  rd£iv  McXx<(r.  /3acr{Xfi)i  ZaXi^/i  Kal  al&viot  leptvt 
fyiffTov  (vii.  1  ff.,  comp.  Dial.  113)  and  the  d/>x«/xi/t  (comp.  also  Dial. 
13  with  Heb.  ix.  13  f.).  The  parallel  between  the  ^evSoTpo<f>T)rat  and 
\f/(v$o$i&dffKa\oi  in  Dial.  82  is  a  notable  reminiscence  of  2  Pet.  ii.  1,  and 
the  destruction  of  the  world  by  fire  in  contrast  with  the  deluge  in  ApoL 
ii  7,  of  2  Pet.  iii.  6  ff.,  without  our  being  able  to  draw  from  them  a 
certain  conclusion  as  to  a  knowledge  of  the  Epistles.  This  use  of 
apostolic  Epistles  fully  corresponds  to  that  of  the  Johannino  writings 
(No.  8). 


THE   GOSPEL   CANON.  65 

5.  Justin  has  therefore  no  knowledge  of  a  Canon  of 
apostolic  writings,  nor  even  of  a  Canon  of  the  Gospels ;  for 
if  it  were  actually  probable  that  he  employed  only  our  four 
Gospels,  he  uses  them  as  historical  documents  and  not  as 
sacred  writings.  Nevertheless,  the  reading  of  the  evan- 
gelical books  at  public  worship,  first  attested  by  him,  would 
very  soon  lead  as  a  matter  of  course  to  their  being  looked 
upon  as  equal  to  the  sacred  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Thus  already  in  Tatian,  Justin's  pupil,  a  phrase  of  the 
Johatinine  prologue  (Gospel  i.  5)  is  introduced  quite  like  a 
citation  from  the  Old  Testament  (Orat.  ad  Or,,  13:  TOVTO  eoriv 
TO  elprjfjifvov) .  At  first  indeed  it  is  always  the  Lord  speaking 
in  them  which  properly  constitutes  their  canonical  authority, 
as  we  have  already  seen  in  Hegesippus  (§  5,  4).  The  words 
of  the  Lord  are  the  Xoyot  ots  (vrp^o^Bo,  (Athenag.  leg.  11), 
while  the  Epistle  to  the  Churches  at  Lyons  and  Vienne 
(ap.  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  5,  2)  quotes  a  saying  of  the  Lord  quite  in 
the  old  manner  (e-rrXrjpovTO  TO  VTTO  TOV  Kvpiov  rj/Jiuv  elprjp.evov ; 
John  xvi.  2).  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  exclusively  the 
Gospels  from  which  these  are  taken,  and  which,  because 
they  contain  such  sayings  of  the  Lord,  are  placed  on  a  par 
with  the  O.  T.  writings,  as  KvpiaKal  ypa<J>ai ;  which  appears 
from  the  words  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth  (circ.  170)  preserved 
in  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  4,  23.  After  Justin's  time  the  fourth 
Gospel  was  more  and  more  definitely  placed  on  an  equality 
with  the  three  older  ones.1  Even  Tatian,  in  whose  discourse 
to  the  Greeks  no  distinct  reference  to  a  synoptic  passage 

1  Of  Hegesippus,  who  in  the  legend  respecting  James  makes  use  of  the 
saying  of  Luke  xxiii.  34  (Euseb.,  H.  E.,  2,  23),  Eusebius  tells  also  that  he 
ix  TOV  Kaff1  'Eppalovs  etayyeXlov  (iced  TOV  Zvpiaicov  Kal  Idlws  tic  T??S  'EfipatSos 
SiaXlicrov)  rivd  rldrjffiv  Kal  &\\a  d£  cJ>s  ^£  'louSat'/djj  aypd<f>ov  irapa86ffe<as 
fjLvi]/j.oi>e>jfi  (H.  E.,  4,  23).  But  it  does  not  by  any  means  follow  that  he 
looked  on  the  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews  as  the  specific  or  even  as  an  essen- 
tial source  of  the  authoritative  word  of  the  Lord ;  nor  do  we  know  that 
any  Gospels  besides  our  own  were  read  anywhere  throughout  the 
Church. 


66  ORIGIN  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

occurs,  has  many  echoes  of  it  besides  the  citation  already 
mentioned  (Orat.  4,  comp.  Gosp.  i.  1;  13,  comp.  i.  5;  19, 
comp.  Gosp.  i.  3)  ;  and  Athenagoras  obviously  draws  his 
doctrine  of  the  Logos  from  John.3  The  historical  part  of 
it  also  is  already  regarded  as  having  equal  weight  with  the 
presentation  of  the  history  of  Jesus  contained  in  the  older 
Gospels.  Melito  of  Sardis  in  a  Fragment  (comp.  Otto,  Corp. 
Apol.,  ix.  p.  416)  estimates  the  public  ministry  of  Christ  as 
lasting  a  rpicria,  which  is  only  possible  on  the  basis  of 
John's  Gospel,  while  according  to  Luke  iii.  23,  He  was  thirty 
years  of  age  before  His  baptism.  Polycrates  of  Ephesus 
(apud  Euseb.,  5,  24),  following  the  Gospel  xiii.  25,  describes 
John  as  6  en-l  TO  <rr^os  roC  Kvpiov  ava7r«rwv,  and  Apollinaris 
of  Hierapolis  in  a  fragment  in  the  Paschal  Chronicle  (ed. 
Dindorf,  p.  14)  not  only  makes  an  undoubted  allusion  to 
the  Gospel  xix.  34,  but  rejects  the  right  conception  of  the 
day  of  Christ's  death  in  the  Synoptics,  on  account  of  the 
divergent  representation  in  John,  and  in  so  far  o-Tao-id&iv 
Sow  TO.  evayye'Xta.  Hence  the  Gospels  already  form  in  his 
estimation  a  united  sacred  whole  in  which  there  can  be 
no  question  of  a  contradiction. 

6.  From  the  fact  that  Christian  authors  or  other  promi- 
nent Churchmen  know  and  use  our  four  Gospels,  it  does  not 

*  Comp.  the  allusion  to  John  i.  3  (Leg.  4, 10),  and  in  the  latter  passage 
the  abiding  of  the  Son  in  the  Father  and  of  the  Father  in  the  Sou  (oomp. 
also  tbe  Koivuvia  rou  irarpbt  TT/WS  TOV  vlfn>,  Leg.  12,  with  1  John  i.  3).  In 
Athenagoras  besides  the  fijffl  rb  Tpo<t>rjTiKoi>  wiv^a.  (Leg.  18)  we  find  also 
a  saying  of  the  Lord  quoted  from  Matthew  v.  28,  Mark  x.  11,  Luke  xviii. 
27,  and  introduced  simply  with  <fnjffl  (Leg.  82,  33 ;  de  Returr.  9),  as  well 
as  a  free  application  of  sayings  which  are  given  in  a  mixed  form  from 
Matthew  and  Luke  (Leg.  i.  11,  12).  Whether  the  saying  in  Leg.  32,  re- 
ferring to  a  late  Church-custom,  and  introduced  in  a  way  that  is  quite 
peculiar,  as  a  speech  of  the  Logos,  is  an  historical  word  of  tbe  Lord, 
may  fairly  be  doubted.  In  the  Church  letter  in  Euseb.,  //.  E.,  6, 2,  besides 
the  express  citation  from  John  xvi.  2,  with  the  exception  of  a  remi- 
niscence of  Luke  i.  5,  we  find  only  echoes  of  John's  Gospel  (comp.  the 
""TY^  Metro?  fwiro?,  the  TO/JcUXi/Tot  and  t/lot  TJJJ  drtAe/ar,  the  ^vgV  Oeivat 
virep  r.  6.8t\<pu>v). 


THE    GOSPEL   CANON.  67 

of  course  follow  that  all  four  existed  and  were  read  in  all 
the  Churches.  It  is  more  likely  that,  in  many  cases,  the 
Churches  were  in  possession  only  of  one  Gospel,  as  appears 
from  formul®  such  as  u>s  ex€Te  *v  T<?  evayyeXiu?  (Did.  15,  3,  4, 
comp.  No.  1,  note  3)  ;  and  it  is  certain  that  many  of  the  text- 
mixings  that  have  become  stereotyped  originated  in  the 
circumstance  that  those  who  knew  the  words  of  the  Lord 
as  recorded  in  other  Gospels,  altered  and  supplemented  the 
Gospel  in  use  among  themselves  to  make  it  accord  with 
these.  It  was  only  when  it  became  more  and  more  univer- 
sally known  that  there  were  four  Gospels,  and  only  four, 
which  were  read  here  and  there  among  the  Churches  and 
thus  accredited,  that  the  thought  of  forming  them  into  a 
Gospel-harmony  for  ecclesiastical  use  could  arise,  since  Mark 
has  too  little  that  is  peculiar  to  him  alone,  and  John 
presents  too  many  difficulties  in  the  way  of  such  an  attempt 
to  make  it  probable  that  these  very  four  had  been  selected 
for  the  purpose  from  a  multitude  of  others.  That  Tatian 
had  compiled  a  Gospel-harmony  of  this  kind  (<ruva.<j>eia.v 
TWO.  KOL  (rwaytayrjv  owe  018'  OTTWS  rutv  euoyyeXtW  avvOeis)  and 
had  called  it  TO  Sta  rearardpuv,  is  narrated  by  Busebius 
(H.  E.,  4,  29),  at  whose  time  it  was  in  occasional  use,  although 
he  himself  seems  not  to  have  been  acquainted  with  it,  any 
more  than  Epiphanius,  who  mentions  it  in  Hcer.,  46,  1. 
Again  (about  450)  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  found  more  than 
200  copies  of  it  in  his  diocese,  and  because  he  thought 
many  of  its  omissions  were  mutilations  in  the  interest  of 
heresy,  he  removed  it  in  order  to  replace  it  by  the  four 
Gospels  in  their  entirety  (Hcer.  fab.,  1,  20). 

The  views  elaborated  in  connection  with  the  hypotheses  concerning 
Justin's  Gospel  (No.  1),  viz.  that  the  so-called  Diatessaron  was  the 
Gospel  of  Peter  or  a  form  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews,  had  always 
a  strong  argument  against  them  in  the  testimony  of  Dionysius  Bar  Salibi 
in  the  12th  century,  who  states  that  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  com- 
mented upon  by  Ephraem  the  Syrian,  began  with  the  introductory  words 
of  John's  Gospel  (comp.  Daniel,  Tatian,  der  Ayologet.,  Halle,  1837 ; 


68          ORIGIN  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

Semisch,  Tat.  Diatessaron.,  Yratisl.,  1856),  but  have  been  definitely  Bet 
aside  by  an  Armenian  translation  of  that  Commentary,  which  was  turned 
into  Latin  by  A.  Aucher  and  improved  by  G.  Moesinger,  furnished  with 
annotations,  and  published  at  Venice,  1876.  C'oinp.  respecting  it,  A. 
Harnack,  in  the  Zeitschrift  f.  Kirchengesch.,  1831,  4  Th.;  Zahn,  Tatian'$ 
Diatessaron,  Erlangen,  1881.  Accordingly  no  doubt  remains  that  Tatian 
elaborated  our  four  Gospels  into  one  whole,  and  Zahn  has  pointed  out 
from  Aphraates  and  the  doctrine  of  Addai  how  his  Gospel-harmony  was 
an  authority  as  the  Gospel  in  the  Syrian  Church  for  a  long  time.  In  it 
the  text  of  the  Gospels  is  very  freely  handled  and  much  abridged,  which 
could  only  have  been  done  before  the  evangelical  books  as  such  had  the 
reputation  in  the  Churches  of  being  sacred.  Even  omissions,  of  the 
genealogies  for  example,  were  perhaps  originally  quite  accidental,  and 
were  due  simply  to  the  fact  that  they  did  not  seem  to  be  adapted  for 
public  reading  in  the  Churches.  The  fact  that  it  even  adopts  such 
incidents  as  the  appearance  of  the  light  at  the  Jordan  (comp.  Zahn,  p. 
241),  is  only  another  proof  how  little  reason  we  have  to  assume  that 
Justin  took  it  entirely  from  one  Gospel  (comp.  No.  2,  note  1).  Zahn  has 
tried  to  explain  the  strange  account  of  Epiphanius  (ibid.),  according  to 
which  some  call  the  Diatessaron  na.0  "Efipaiovs,  by  supposing  that  the 
Diatessaron  was  composed  in  Syriac;  but  it  is  just  as  easy  to  explain  it 
on  the  assumption  that  the  error  arose  from  what  was  known  as  a  Syrian 
translation  of  it. 

The  oldest  Syrian  and  Latin  translations  of  the  four 
Gospels  (comp.  Cnreton,  Remains  of  a  very  Ancient  Recension 
of  the  Four  Gospels  in  Syriac,  London,  1858 ;  Fr.  Baethgen, 
der  Qriech.  Text  des  Cureton.  Syrers,  Leipzig,  1885 ;  L. 
Ziegler,  die  lat.  Bibeliibers.  vor  Hieronymus,  Miinchen,  1879), 
which  made  them  accessible  to  the  Syriac  and  Latin-speak- 
ing Churches,  must  have  proceeded  from  the  time  when 
these  Gospels  were  generally  nsed  for  public  reading  in 
the  Churches.  Such  translations  show  that  the  separate 
Churches  had  gradually  adopted  the  same  usage,  and  each 
one  was  anxious  to  possess  all  four  Gospels.  That  these 
were  employed  even  in  Jewish-Christian  circles,  is  estab- 
lished by  the  pseudo-Clementine  Homilies  since  the  dis- 
covery of  their  conclusion  in  1853  (comp.  19,  22  with  John 
ix.  2,  etc.).  Even  by  the  heathen  the  written  Gospels  alone 
were  regarded  as  the  cruyypd/i/taTa  of  the  Christians.  From 


THE   GOSPEL  CANON.  69 

Origen's  work  against  Celsus,  we  see  that  lie  tries  to  refute 
the  Christians  from  these  as  the  documents  recognised 
by  themselves  (2,  74),  and  that  by  them  he  understands  in 
reality  our  four  Gospels.1  Thus  a  fixed  Canon  of  the 
Gospels  based  on  the  exclusive  ecclesiastical  validity  of  our 
four  Gospels  gradually  arose.  The  time  when  it  became 
universally  established  can  of  course  no  longer  be  definitely 
ascertained  ;  but  so  early  as  the  end  of  the  second  century, 
Bishop  Serapion  would  no  longer  permit  the  use  of  Peter's 
Gospel  (comp.  §  8,  4)  in  the  Churches  of  Rhossus  in  Cilicia 
(Euseb.,  H.E.,  6,  12)  .  It  is  certain  that  Irenaeus,  when  near 
his  eightieth  year  he  wrote  his  great  work  against  the  heretics, 
already  regarded  it  as  an  established  fact  that  the  Logos  had 
given  us  TfrpafJiop^ov  TO  euayyeA-iov,  fv\  8e  irvev/xari  (rwe^o/*evov, 
and  already  seeks  to  prove  an  arrangement  of  Providence, 
from  the  significance  of  the  number  four  (Adv.  fleer.,  iii. 
11,  8).  It  is  equally  certain  that  with  Tertullian,  the 
autoritas  ecclesiarum  apostolicarum  stands  side  by  side  with 
our  four  Gospels  (Adv.  Marc.,  4,  5),  and  Clement  of  Alexandria 
speaks  of  the  four  Gospels  as  rd  TrapaScSo/xeva  •fffuv  (Strom. 
3,  13).  8  But  when  in  his  Hypotyposen  he  gives  a 


1  When  lie  upbraids  them  with  having  altered  TO  e6ayy£\iov  three  and 
four  times  and  even  oftener  (2,  27),  this  was  plainly  the  impression  he 
derived  from  the  mixing  of  like  and  unlike  in  the  Gospels  ;  but  besides 
our  Gospels  he  seems  to  have  been  acquainted  also  with  heretical  re- 
modellings.    From  his  polemic  it  appears  that  he  chiefly  used  Matthew, 
though  also  Luke  and  John,  and  from  his  pointing  to  the  fact  that  some 
speak  of  two  angels  in  the  history  of  the  resurrection  (Luke,  John)  and 
some  only  one  (Matt.,  Mark),  we  see  that  he  was  acquainted  with  our 
four  Gospels  as  the  ffvyypd/j.iJ.a.Ta  of  the  Christians  (5,  52,  56). 

2  When  Clement  sometimes  quotes  words  of  Christ  which  are  not 
found  in  the  Gospels,  they  proceed  probably  from  oral  tradition,  e.  gr. 
the  free  alteration  of  Matt.  vi.  33  (Strom.  1,  24),  even  where  they  are 
quoted  as  ypa<f>Ji  (1,  28)  or  refer  back  to  a  Gospel  (5,  10),  which  simply 
rests  on  a  misconception,  as  is  undoubtedly  the  case  with  respect  to  the 
saying  ascribed  to  Christ  in  3,  15  (comp.  §  5,  6,  note  1).    It  cannot  be 
proved  that  Clement  acknowledged  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews 
from  the  citation    out  of    it  along  with  Plato's  Theatetut  and  tha 
wa/>a56«is  of  Matthew  (2,  9). 


70  OBIGIN   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   CANON. 

rCn>  avtKaBcv  irpeo-flvTepw  respecting  the  order  in  which  the 
Gospels  were  written  (apud  Euseb.,  H.E.,  6,  14),  it  is  clear 
that  among  those  wpeo-ySurepoi  the  four  Gospels  alone  were  re- 
garded as  ecclesiastically  valid.3  The  first  foundation  of  a 
New  Testament  Canon  was  thus  laid.  It  will  be  seen, 
especially  in  Tertullian,  how  at  the  end  of  the  second  century 
the  Church  already  felt  itself  bound  by  ecclesiastical  usage 
respecting  the  Gospels.  Hence  we  may  the  moi*e  readily 
assume  that  two  decades  at  least  had  already  passed"  away 
since  this  usage  had  arisen  and  been  more  or  less  firmly 
settled. 

7.  The  more  clearly  we  perceive  the  relations  under  which 
in  the  third  quarter  of  the  second  century  the  collection 
of  the  four  Gospels  attained  to  ecclesiastical  authority,  the 
less  can  we  suppose  that  a  collection  of  New  Testament 
Epistles,  of  equal  value  in  the  eyes  of  the  Church,  was  already 
in  existence  at  that  time.  Melito  of  Sardis  procures  and 
imparts  accurate  information  regarding  the  number  and 
order  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Covenant  (Euseb.,  H.E.,  4,  26), 
but  we  hear  nothing  of  a  similar  undertaking  with  respect 
to  the  New  Testament  writings,  although  he  must  havo 
already  been  acquainted  with  books  that  come  under  this 
category  (comp.  §  9,  1).  Ewald's  hypothesis  of  a  collection 
of  Pauline  Epistles  and  a  hundred  other  works,  which  were 
read  on  Sundays,  is  pure  imagination.  Though  Eusebius 
concludes  from  a  letter  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth,  that  the 
so-called  first  Epistle  of  Clement  c£  dpxai/ov  «0°u«  was  rea^  in 


•  It  i*  certain  that  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  to  judge  from  hia  work 
ad  Autol.,ia  also  acquainted  with  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  (3,  18;,  of  Luke 
(2,  13)  and  of  John  (2,  22).  Jerome,  according  to  the  Vint  III.,  25,  read 
a  commentary  on  the  Gospel,  having  his  name,  the  genuineness  of  which 
he  appears  indeed  to  doubt  in  that  work,  but  which  he  mentions  after- 
wards  without  any  such  suspicion  (comp.  pref.  in  Matt ).  This  com- 
mentary, according  to  the  epist.  121  ad  Algiu.  worked  up  the  words  of 
the  four  evangelists  in  some  harmonintio  way  (oomp.  Zaho,  Fortchui>g<n 
tur  Ge»ch.  dt»  STlichen  Kanon,  2,  Erlaugeu,  1883. 


THE    GOSPEL   CANON.  71 

his  church  (H.  E.,  4,  23),  yet  the  passage  he  quotes  in 
support  of  his  view  only  states  that  an  epistle  which  they 
had  received  from  the  Romans  was  read  by  them  on  the 
Sunday,  i.e.  at  the  regular  meeting  of  the  Church,  and 
would  always  continue  to  be  read  for  their  admonition,  as 
would  also  be  the  case  with  the  epistle  written  by  Clement. 
The  question  therefore  turns  upon  an  occasional  reading  of 
such  Church-letters,  which  can  by  no  means  be  put  in  com- 
parison with  a  public  reading  of  the  holy  Scriptures  at 
worship.  The  case  was  somewhat  different  with  the 
Apocalypse,  which  as  a  work  of  the  prophetic  spirit  was 
brought  forward  as  a  means  of  proof  even  before  Justin 
(No.  4).1  But  when  we  read  in  Athenagoras  Set  Kara  TOV 
ttTTo'oroAov  TO  <f>6apTov  TOVTO — fv8vcra(rOaL  dtfrdapo-iav  (JDe  Resurr., 
18),  we  must  consider  that  we  have  here  to  do,  not  with  the 
instruction  or  admonition  of  an  apostle  as  such,  but  with 
a  passage  where  Paul,  speaking  in  the  prophetic  spirit,  says 
iSov  fivcrrijpiov  vfuv  Xeyo)  (1  Cor.  xv.  51,  53).  Besides,  no 
citations  of  New  Testament  epistles  are  to  be  found  in 
writings  certainly  belonging  to  this  time,2  but  only  more  or 
less  distinct  echoes  of  such  as  attest  the  Ktei'ary  value  of 
detached  words  or  expressions  taken  from  them,  as  in  Justin 
(No.  4). 


1  According  to  Eusebius  (H.  E.,  4, 26),  Melito  of  Sardis  also  wrote  upon 
it.    Athenagoras  (Lfg.  36)  has  it  in  his  inind  in  the  words  airoSitxretv  rfy 
yty  TOI>S  tSlovs  veKpofo  (Apoc.  xx.  13)  and  in  the  Epistle  of  the  Church  at 
Lyons  and  Yienne,  which  in  any  case  showed  an  acquaintance  with  the 
Apocalypse,  since  it  has  an  undoubted  reference  to  xiv.  4  (comp.  also  the 
iri<7ros  Kal  d\Tj0u'6j  /Jidprvs  and  the  TrpwrbTOKosTuv  veKpuv,  Apoc.  iii.  14;  i.  5, 
apud  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  5,  3),  a  passage  is  cited  out  of  it  (xxii.  11)  with  Iva.  i] 
7pa07j  ir\i7/)«0ij  (Euseb.,  H.E.,  5,  2),  if  there  be  not  here  an  interchange 
with  Daniel  xii.  10. 

2  Assuredly  the  Ep.  ad.  Diogn.  does  not  belong  to  these  in  its  con- 
cluding part,  where  (chap.  11)  we  read  elra  0^/3os  vt>nov  gSercu  Kal  irpo<pT)Tu>v 
\dpts  ytvuffKerai,   Kal  euayyeXiwv  irlaris  ZSpvrai  Kal  diroffT&\<i)i>  irapd8o<rit 
<pv\afffferat,  Kal   €KK\i)ffias   x<*Pls  ffxtprf,  and   chap.  12  is  adduced  with 
o  dir6<rroXos  X£yet  1  Cor.  viii.  1. 


72  ORIGIN   OP   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

Thus  we  have  an  ecLo  of  the  Fpistle  to  the  Romans  in  Tatian  (Orat.  4  : 
TOUTQV  Sid  Tijt  -iroi-fyrtus  avrou  tfffj.tv  Kai  rfjt  duva.fj.eut  ai/rou  TO  diparor  roTi 
Totrifiaffi  Kara\a/.i^av6/j.fOa,  comp.  Horn.  i.  20  ;  orat.  11 :  SouXoi  yeyfoafiev 
ol  fXfvOtpot,  8iA  ri}v  apapriav  IrpdOrjfitf,  comp.  Rom.  vii.  15) ;  in  Athena- 
goras  we  find  the  Xoyucij  \arpfla,  from  Rom.  iii.  1  (Leg.  13),  and  a  plain 
imitation  of  Rom.  i.  27  (Ley.  34) ;  in  tho  Church  epistle  contained  in 
Euseb.,  H.  K.,6, 2,  we  have  the  ^u»  rf  vv(u/j.an  taken  from  Rom.  zii.  11, 
and  the  verbal  use  of  Rom.  viii.  18 ;  while  the  Martyrdom  of  Pulycarp 
(chap.  10)  has  a  reference  to  Rom.  xiii.  1,  7).  Only  faint  echoes  of  the 
first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  are  to  be  found  in  the  Greek  Discourse 
and  the  Martyrdom  (comp.  the  image  of  the  »a6t  and  the  \f/vx"col  in  Orat. 
15  and  Mart.  Pot.,  1,  with  1  Cor.  x.  33,  xi.  1),  and  in  Atheuagoras,  cfe  Beturr., 
besides  the  above  citation,  we  have  the  doctrine  of  the  change  of  those 
that  are  alive  and  remain  (chap.  xii.  xvi.)  and  the  peculiar  expression 
8ov\ayu>ytir  (chap.  xix.).  Finally  we  have  a  trace  also  of  the  second 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  (iii.  14,  etc.)  in  the  Opianfiftdv  and  the  tvwSia 
XptoroO  (apud  Euseb.,  v.  2,  29,  35),  and  a  manifest  reference  to  v.  10  in 
Athen.,  de  Returr.,  18.  The  latter  is  acquainted  also  with  the  TTWX&  *ol 
dffOevT)  ffToixew  from  Gal.  iv.  4  (Leg.  1G).  Of  the  minor  Pauline  Epistles 
we  have  an  undoubted  reference  to  Phil.  ii.  6  in  the  Church-letter,  aa 
well  as  a  reminiscence  of  the  dprtjccl/ifcos  of  the  second  Epistle  to  the 
Thessalonians  and  His  second  coming  (Euseb.,  5,  2,  3).  Of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  the  First  to  Timothy  is  well  known  to  Athenagoras  (comp.  ii.  2,  ii. 
1,  with  chap.  13,  37,  and  the  #wi  drp&rn-oy,  chap.  16),  and  in  the  Church- 
letter  in  Euseb.  5,  2,  occurs  the  <rrS\ot  ical  iSpalwua  from  1  Tim.  iii.  15. 
Of  Tatian  we  hear  incidentally  (§  8,  5,  note  2)  that  he  acknowledged  the 
Epistle  to  Titus,  although  it  cannot  be  shown  that  it  was  used.  On  the 
other  hand  we  find  no  certain  trace  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  even 
in  the  diroi/yo<r^o  of  Tatian  (Orat.  16)  or  the  Ayye\oi  \tirovpyol  (Athen., 
Leg.  10);  nor  of  the  Petrine  Epistles  in  the  expressions  do-wria  (Orat.  17), 
or  ffK^vu/M  (Orat.  15).  But  certainly  there  is  a  clear  reference  to  1  Pet. 
v.  6,  in  the  Church-letter  (Euseb.  5,  3,  comp.  also  the  TI/ITJK  drorl/i"' 
Athenag.,  Leg.  32)  which  also  shows  familiarity  with  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  (comp.  the  d/>xTyo*  TTJI  fw/Jt,  and  the  mention  of  Stephen's  prayer, 
ap.  Euseb.,  5,  8)  from  which  we  have  in  Tatian  only  some  singular  ex- 
pressions (<nre/)/AoX670t,  0eo/idx<>i,  Orat.  6,  13). 

The  fact  that  there  is  no  reference  to  the  apostles  as  an 
authority  for  doctrine,  may  have  its  origin  in  the  circum- 
stance that  the  documents  here  considered  treat  nowhere  of 
an  antithesis  within  Christianity,  as  is  perhaps  the  case  in 
Polycarp  (§  6,  2)  ;  but  the  circumstance  that  apart  from 
casual  prophetic  words,  the  necessity  of  direct  reference  to 


THE  CANON  OP  APOSTOLIC  TBADITIONAL  DOCTRINE.    73 

the  writings  of  the  apostles  never  arises,  shows  clearly  that 
until  after  the  third  quarter  of  the  second  century,  the 
conditions  for  the  formation  of  an  epistolary  Canon  are 
utterly  wanting.  So  much  the  more  striking  must  it  appear 
when  the  Tubingen  school  declares  it  to  be  a  literary  form 
adapted  to  the  spirit  of  the  time  and  without  ulterior  motive, 
that  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century  numerous  works 
should  have  been  put  into  circulation  under  apostolic  names 
(comp.  Koestlin,  Die  pseudonyme  Literatur  der  dltesten  Kirche  ; 
Theol.  Jahrb.  1851,  2),  while  it  is  not  evident  what  object  this 
form  could  have  had  at  a  time  when  no  need  of  a  written 
authentication  of  apostolic  doctrine  was  felt,  and  the  name 
of  an  apostle  at  the  head  of  a  writing  by  no  means  gave 
it  unique  authority.  On  the  other  hand,  these  pretended 
primitive  documents  of  the  second  century  show  no  trace  of 
the  very  thing  which  is  characteristic  of  the  real  primitive 
documents  belonging  to  it,  viz.  an  appeal  to  the  words  of  the 
Lord  and  the  written  Gospels.  Yet  it  is  strange  enough  that 
the  most  important  productions  of  this  time,  at  least  in  a 
spiritual  sense,  and  most  profound  in  their  theology,  should 
all  have  decked  themselves  out  in  borrowed  apostolic  names, 
while  only  the  comparatively  weaker  and  less  important 
ventured  to  appear  under  their  own  name  or  that  of  a 
contemporary.  It  is  plain  that  only  the  same  relations  of 
time  can  have  given  rise  to  the  need  of  going  back  to  the 
apostolic  writings  on  the  one  hand  and  to  a  pseudonymous 
apostolic  literature  on  the  other. 

§  8.    THE  CANON  OP  APOSTOLIC  TRADITIONAL  DOCTRINE. 

1.  In  the  course  of  the  second  century  Gnosticism  was 
developing  into  a  sect,  while  Ebionism  had  already  become 
such.  Against  these  heretical  tendencies,  neither  the  sacred 
scripture  of  the  Old  Testament,  whose  authority  was  even 
disputed  on  many  occasions,  and  which  by  means  of  alle- 


74  ORIGIN   OP   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

gorical  interpretation  was  explained  in  the  most  diverse 
ways  in  the  Church  itself,  nor  the  simple  words  of  the  Lord 
could  suffice.  Even  the  Gospel-Canon  that  was  gradually 
taking  shape,  proved  of  doubtful  value,  since  as  a  new 
sacred  scripture  it  gave  unlimited  scope  for  allegorical  inter- 
pretation. Hence  there  naturally  followed  a  return  to  the 
teaching  of  the  apostles,  who  with  the  simple  announcement 
of  the  saving  facts  of  the  gospel  had  always  associated  the 
certainty  of  present  and  future  salvation,  making  this  the 
motive  for  obedience  to  the  new  Christian  law  of  life  (§  0, 
2;  7,  4).  They  had  taught  nothing  but  what  the  Lord  hs-.d 
tanght  them,  nor  professed  anything  but  what  He  Himself 
had  attested  (Iren.,  adv.  Hcer.,  III.  9,  1 ;  17,  4,  comp.  Tertnll., 
dePrccscr.  Hcer.,  6  ;  "  acceptam  a  Christo  disciplinam  fideliter 
assignavernnt,"  comp.  chap.  21).  Their  doctrine,  as  trans- 
mitted to  the  Churches,  now  took  its  place  beside  the  nor- 
mative authority  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Lord's 
words,  or  directly  supplanted  the  latter.1  The  conscious- 
ness that  their  announcement  was  at  first  oral  and  only 
afterwards  committed  by  them  to  writings,  is  still  present 
(Iren.,  adv.  Hcer.,  III.  1,  I,  comp.  Tert.,  de  Prcescr.  Hcer.,  21). 
Even  if  they  had  left  no  writing,  the  tradition  of  their 
teachings  would  certainly  be  found  in  the  Churches,  since  as 
a  matter  of  fact  they  have  been  faithfully  preserved  in  many 
Churches  among  foreigners  (III.  4,  1  f.).  This  transmitted 

1  This  threefold  norm  is  continually  repented  by  Irenaeus:  *po<f>rjrai 
iK^pv^am,  6  ictipiot  t&i&a.£tv,  car6<rro\ot  TraplSuKov  (adv.  Heer.,1.  8,  1),  or  more 
fully:  "lex  annnntiat,  prophet®  praeconant,  Christus  revelat,  apostoli 
tiadnnt,  ecclcsia  credit"  (II.  30,  9).  But  Serapion  already  says  (apnd 
Kuseb.,  6,  12),  rovt  airocr6Xovt  diroSrx&fi.e0a  ut  Xpurrfo ;  therefore  it  may 
simply  mean,  that  the  teaching  of  the  Church  baa  its  witness,  "  a  pro- 
phetis  et  ab  apostolis  et  ab  omnibus  discipulis"  (III.  24,  1,  cqmp.  Tert., 
adv.  Hermog.,  45  :  "prophets  et  apostoli  non  ita  tradunt  ").  Tbe  IxxXi;- 
ffia<TTiirt)  vapdSoffit  proceeds  from  the  boly  apostles,  the  tradition  handed 
down  by  them  and  the  teachers  is  a  Qtia  *-a/>d5o<m  (Clem.  Alex.,  Strom. 
1,  1 ;  7,  16),  for  which  reason  the  apostles  are  directly  put  on  a  line  with 
the  prophets  (1,  9),  and  the  law  transmitted  through  them,  with  that 
given  by  Moses  (Padag.  8,  12). 


THE  CANON  OP  APOSTOLIC  TRADITIONAL  DOCTRINE.    75 

doctrine  derived  from  the  apostles  and  preserved  in  the 
Churches  now  forms  the  Canon,  i.e.  the  normal  authority  by 
which  true  doctrine  is  to  be  determined. 

The  word  Kav6i>  originally  denotes  a  measure,  rule,  norm  (Gal.  vi.  16  ; 
2  Cor.  x.  13,  comp.  1  Clem.  1,  3,  tv  r$  Kavbvt  T.  i/jrorcry^j,  41,  1 :  r&r 
wpiff/jLtvov  TT?S  \eiTovpyias  Ka.v6va).  Already  in  1  Clem.  7,  2,  the  <re,uv6s 
riys  7ra/>o5o0-e«s  KO.V&V  is  the  rule  handed  down  to  us,  by  which  to  deter- 
mine what  is  good  and  well-pleasing  in  the  eyes  of  God.  In  Polycrates  of 
Ephes.  (Euseb.,  H.E.,  5,  24),  the  KO.V&V  rijs  wt'orews,  is  not  yet  the  rule  to 
determine  what  to  believe,  but  the  rule  pertaining  to  faith,  i.e.  to  be- 
lievers, which  determines  ecclesiastical  usage  solely  in  accordance  with 
the  gospel.  The  expression  is  now  first  applied  to  the  rule  of  doctrine. 
"  In  ei  n-gula  incedimns,"  savs  Tertullian,  "qunm  ecclesia  ab  apostolis, 
apostoli  a  Chiisto,  Christus  a  deo  tradidit  (de  Praescr.,  37) ;  this  is  the 
"  regula  fidei  a  Christo  instituta  "  cap.  13  (comp.  de  came  Chr.,  2 :  "si 
christianns  es,  crede  qnod  traditum  est  ab  eis  quorum  fuit  tradere  ").  In 
Ireuaeus  too  the  KO.VWV  T.  dXTjtfetas,  is  the  faith  which  the  Church  has 
received  from  the  apostles  aud  their  disciples  (adv.  Har.,  I.  9,  4,  comp. 
10,  1),  and  in  Clement  6  ffefivbs  rrfs  irapaSoffews  KO.V&V  ia  the  KO.VUV  rijj 
tKK\i]<rlas  (Strom.  1,  1 ;  7,  17),  the  KOO>&V  T.  jrlffreus  (4,  15). 

2.  Though  Jewish  Christianity,  in  isolating  itself  from 
the  collective  Church,  might  justly  retain  the  consciousness 
of  being  still  in  some  way  connected  with  the  apostolic  time 
and  its  traditions,  yet  Gnosis  must  have  been  aware  that  it 
was  trying  to  put  forward  views  foreign  to  those  prevailing 
in  the  Church,  and  even  in  many  cases  opposed  to  them. 
But  it  could  only  prove  these  to  be  Christian  by  showing 
their  connection  with  primitive  Christianity,  and  the  simplest 
way  to  do  this  was  by  appealing  on  its  own  behalf  to  an 
oral  tradition  proceeding  from  the  apostles,  but  preserved 
in  its  own  circles  alone.1  It  was  easy  indeed  for  the  Church 

1  Ptolemseus  in  his  epistle  to  Flora  also  appeals  to  the  i.vo<rro\iKi) 
•irapdSoffis,  ty  £K  Siadoxrjs  ical  i)/j.eis  Tra.p€i\-q<pajji.ev  iravrat  robs  \6yovs  KO.V- 
ovlffai  ry  rov  ffur?j{>os  5i5a<rKa\lq.  (Epiph.,  liar.,  33,  7).  Thus  Basilides 
appealed  to  the  Apostle  Matthias  (Philosoph.,  7,  20),  or  to  his  teacher 
Glaukias,  who,  as  the  tp/ji-qvefo  of  Peter  transmitted  his  doctrine  to  him  ; 
Valentine  to  a  certain  TheoJas,  who  is  supposed  to  have  been  a  yv<apifji6s 
of  Paul  (Clem.,  Strom.  7,  17),  the  Ophites  to  a  woman  of  the  name  of 
Mariamne,  who  received  her  doctrine  from  James  the  brother  of  th« 


7G  ORIGIN   OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

Fathers  in  opposition  to  lay  claim,  on  behalf  of  the  tradition 
alive  in  the  Church,  to  the  only  proveable  apostolic  origin. 
When  Clement  represented  the  true  Gnosis  as  yvoixrcs  rj  Kara 
SiaSo^as  ci9  oAiyous  CK  TWC  aTrooroAuv  aypa^oos  -rrapabodtiaa 
Ka.T(Xri\vQfv  (Strom.  6,  7),  Irenreus  based  the  certainty  of  the 
genuine  transmission  of  apostolic  doctrine  in  the  Church  on 
the  "  successiones  presbyterorum,"  "which  could  be  followed 
up  to  the  apostles  (adv.  Hcer.,  II.  2,  2;  3, 1)  ;  Tertullian,  on  the 
testimony  of  the  Churches  founded  by  the  apostles,  which 
have  the  "tradux  fidei  et  semina  doctrines,"  and  on  their 
wider  plantings  (de  Prcescr.  Hcer.,  20,  comp.  adv.  Marc.,  1,  21 ; 
4,  5).  But  they  constantly  appealed  to  the  unanimity  of  the 
tradition  of  the  Church,  as  contrasted  with  the  manifold 
diversities  of  error  (Iren.,  adv.  Hcer.,  I.  10,  1  f. ;  II.  27,  1. 
Tert.,  de  Prcescr.  Hcer.,  20;  28;  32 ;  Clem.,  Strom.  7,  17  :  /u'a 
•fj  irdvrwv  ytyovc  TWV  aTrooToAoov  wcnrep  &i8a<rKaXia,  ourtos  Si  KCU.  r) 
TrapaoWis),  and  to  its  greater  age  in  opposition  to  the  devia- 
tion from  it  that  had  come  in  later.  The  errorists  made 
their  appearance  long  after  the  bishops  to  whom  the  apostles 
handed  over  the  Churches  (Iren.,  adv.  Hcer.,  V.  20,  1),  and 
were  unable  to  prove  the  apostolic  origin  of  their  Churches 
(Tert.,  32) ;  truth  is  the  earlier,  heresy  the  later  (de  Prcescr. 
Hcer.,  30,  adv.  Marc.,  1,  1,  comp.  Clem.,  Strom.  7,  16,  Iren., 
adv.  Hcer.,  I,  21,  5).8 

Lord  (PJiilosoph.,  6,  7  ;  10, 9).  They  maintained  that  the  Apostles  "non 
omnia  revelasse,  quaedam  secreto  et  paucis  domaiulasse"  (Tert.,  de 
Prcescr.  Hcer.,  25),  or,  like  the  Gnostic  Tiara  ffocj>ta,  they  appeal  to  a 
secret  tradition  which  went  back  to  Christ  Himtelf  (Iren.,  adv.  Har., 
I.  25,  6 ;  II.  27,  2  f. ;  III.  2,  1). 

1  How  much  self-deception  underlay  this  defence  of  apostolic  tradi- 
tion I  since  the  more  rigid  Church  organization,  which  based  its  claim  on 
the  apostolic  succession  of  the  bishops,  itself  originated  as  a  weapon  in 
the  struggle  against  heresy  ;  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  heretical 
tendencies  were  found  in  opposition  to  what  was  accounted  apostolic 
doctrine  in  the  Churches  of  antiquity,  and  that  their  appeal  to  particular 
and  secret  traditions  was  not  able  to  shake  the  Church  in  its  certainty 
that  the  doctrinal  views  current  in  it  went  back  to  the  oral  tradition  of 
apostolic  teaching. 


THE  CANON  OF  APOSTOLIC  TBADITIONAL  DOCTEINE.    77 

3.  Thus  the  heretics  were  first  compelled  to  go  back  to 
the  written  memorials  of  the  apostolic  time  in  the  hope,  by 
changing  and  perverting  their  meaning,  of  being  able  to 
prove  from  them,  that  the  doctrines  in  which  they  differed 
from  the  traditional  teaching  of  the  Church,  were  apostolic. 
It  was  only  necessary  to  carry  over  to  the  Gospels  and  the 
apostolic  writings  the  allegorical  method  of  interpretation  of 
the  Old  Testament  which  was  current  in  the  Church  itself. 
The  fact  that  they  first  applied  this  treatment  to  the  apos- 
tolic writings,  making  these  the  basis  of  their  views,  as  the 
normal  authority  on  doctrine,  is  adequately  explained  on 
the  ground  that  the  Church,  fully  conscious  of  being  in 
possession  of  apostolic  doctrine  handed  down  from  oral 
tradition,  had  no  need  to  verify  it  by  going  back  to  isolated 
transmitted  writings  of  the  apostles,  while  the  heretics  could 
only  justify  their  departure  from  the  traditional  doctrine 
of  the  Church,  by  seeking  to  give  it  a  foundation  in  these 
written  memorials.  The  fact  itself,  however,  is  established 
beyond  a  doubt,  by  the  close  analogy  between  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  New  Testament  citations  of  Scripture  contained 
in  the  Philosophumena,  in  the  excerpts  from  the  works  of 
Theodotus  (following  the  works  of  Clem,  of  Alex.),  and  in 
the  letter  of  Ptolemy  to  Flora  (apud  Epiph.  Hcer.,  33) -1  It 
is  also  confirmed  by  the  circumstance  that  an  interest  in 
exegesis  first  sprang  up  in  heretical  circles.  Only  if  the 

1  It  is  therefore  quite  unimportant  how  far  it  can  be  proved  with 
certainty  that  the  extracts  in  the  Philosophumena  proceed  from  direct 
works  of  Basilides,  Valentine,  and  other  of  the  oldest  Gnostics,  since 
even  the  flourishing  period  of  their  disciples,  and  consequently  the 
writings  belonging  to  them,  fall  into  a  time  in  which  a  similar  use  of 
the  New  Testament  writings  was  not  yet  thought  of  among  historians 
(comp.  upon  this  point  Jakobi  in  the  deutsche  Zeitschr.  f.  christl.  Wiss., 
1851,  28,  etc. ;  1853,  24,  etc. ;  Scholten,  die  dltesten  Zevgnisse  betrcffend 
die  Schriften  des  N.  Tests.,  translated  by  Manchot,  Bremen,  1867 ;  Hof- 
stede  de  Groot,  Basilides  als  erster  Zeuge  fur  Alter  und  Autoritdt  der 
NTlichen  Schriften,  Leipzig,  1868 ;  G.  Heinrici,  die  valentinianische 
Gnosis  und  die  h.  Schrift,  Berlin,  1871). 


78  ORIGIN   OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

apostolic  writings  were  used  as  normative  documents  for  the 
decision  of  questions  of  doctrine,  could  it  become  necessary 
to  fix  the  meaning  of  their  statements  exegetically,  or  to 
prove  in  an  exegotical  way  that  they  contained  the  doctrines 
for  which  their  attestation  was  desired.  Thus  Basilides 
wrote  twenty-four  books  c^yv/riKa  on  the  Gospel,  the  Valen- 
tinian  Heracleon,  the  first  commentaiy  on  John's  Gospel 
(comp.  also  Harnack,  Mar  don's  Commentar  zum  Evangelium 
in  Brieger's  Zeitschr  f.  Kirchengesch.,  IV.  4).  Thus  it  is 
shown  that  Tatian,  who  in  his  Greek  discourse  has  but  few 
echoes  of  the  apostolic  writings  (§  7,  7),  influenced  by  the 
heresy  of  his  day,  made  repeated  perversions  of  apostolic 
utterances  in  the  interest  of  his  errors  (comp.  his  inter- 
pretation of  Gal.  vi.  8,  ap.  Hieron.,  on  this  passage,  and  of 
1  Cor.  xv.  22,  ap.  Iren.  adv.  Hcer.,  III.  23,  8).  They  are  con- 
stantly upbraided  by  the  Church  Fathers  for  their  arbitrary 
exegesis  by  means  of  which  they  put  into  the  words  of 
Scripture  a  meaning  consistent  with  their  own  doctrines.9 
Yet  they  were  right  in  maintaining  that  only  6  rov  KOLVOVO.  TT)S 
aXrjOcias  axXn^  iv  eaurw  Kar^tav  could  understand  the  true 
meaning  of  the  Scriptures  (Iren.,  adv.  Hcer.,  V.  9,  4,  comp. 


*  Comp.  Iren.,  adv.  Hcer.,  I.  3,  6:  i<t>opnl^tiv  fJiatfufvoi  rh.  /caXwi  ftprju^a 
TOIJ  Katfwj  tiru>evor)/j.ti>ois  {nr  avrwv.  —  £K  rS>»  ei/ayyeXt/cwr  /col  TUV  diro- 
ffro\iKuv  jrei/jwrrac  rii  dtroSel^fit  trott'lffffat,  TraparptTrovTfs  T&J  lpni)vdat  teal 
pq.5iovpyriaa.vTfs  rds  tbrrfafit,  oomp.  8,  1.  Iii  like  manner  Clem.  Alex, 
objects  to  them,  that  they  8ia.aTpi<t>ov<Ti  rdj  ypatpas  TT/..OS  raj  ISias  fj5ova,t 
— Piaftfievoi  ir/>As  ij8vira.6elas  r4»  iavruv  (Strom.  3,  4;  comp.  7,  16:  rA — 
i'wo  TUV  iJ.a.Ka.piuv  diroffr6\uv  re  Kai  StSaffKdXuv  irapaSedo/j.^fa  ffo<f>l£orr(U 
Oi'  (ripdif  irfp^yxftpriatuv  di>0p<airclas  OioacrxaXiaj).  Turtullian  rightly 
Bays,  de  Prase.  Hcer.,  48  :  "  Quibus  fait  propositum  aliter  docendi,  eoa 
necessitas  coe^it  aliter  disponemli  instrnmcnta  doctrinae."  Thus  it  is 
said  of  them,  that  they  "  soripturas  qaidem  confitentur,  interpr  tationes 
vero  convertunt"  (Iren.,  adv.  Hcer.,  IK.  12,  12;  comp.  Tert.,  da  Prase. 
Hcer.,  17).  Hence  Tertnllian  declares  it  to  be  a  mere  pretence  when 
Valentine  "  intogro  instrumento  oti  vidctur,"  whilst  he  in  reality 
"  plus  abstulit  et  plus  adjecit  auferens  proprictates  singnlorum  qnoque 
vorborum  et  adjioiens  dispositiones  non  comparentium  rerum "  (de 
Prtescr.  Hcer.,  38). 


THE  CANON  OF  APOSTOLIC  TEADITIONAL  DOCTRINE.    79 


Clem.,  Strom.  6,  15  :  T&V  ypatjxav  e^y^triv  Kara  TOV 
KOV  Kavova  eKSe^oyxevot,  who  finds  this  IKK\.  KO.V.  in  the  crvvcoSia 
/ecu  o~vp.(f>wvia  VO/AOV  re  KGU  -jrpofi-rjTiov  TTJ  Kara.  T^V  TOV  xvpiov 
wapoucrtav  TrapaOi$ofj.evy  Sia^^xg),  that  only  where  the  veritat 
fidei  Christiana  existed,  would  the  veritas  expositionum  also 
be  found  (Tert.,  de  Prwsc.  fleer.,  19).  For  just  as  certainly 
as  this  fundamental  principle,  if  adopted  as  a  universal 
exegetical  Canon,  must  prove  misleading,  so  certainly  had 
a  time  whose  conscious  belief  still  rested  on  living  apostolic 
tradition,  a  right  to  make  this  the  criterion  for  the  under- 
standing of  the  apostolic  memorials.  But  it  was  clear  that 
little  was  gained  in  this  way,  when  there  was  a  going  back 
from  oral  traditional  doctrine  to  the  Scripture  documents 
of  apostolic  times.  The  dispute  turned  on  the  right  inter- 
pretation of  the  latter,  and  this  again  could  only  be  finally 
determined  by  an  appeal  to  the  former.  For  this  reason 
Tertullian  will  by  no  means  admit  the  heretics  to  the  dis- 
putatio  de  scripturis,  because  the  possessio  scripturarum  does 
not  belong  to  them  (de  Prcescr.  fleer.,  15,  16):  "non  ad 
scripturas  provocandum  est  nee  in  his  constituendum  certa- 
men,  in  quibus  aut  nulla  aut  incerta  victoria  est"  (chap.  19). 
Just  because  the  appeal  to  the  apostolic  written  memorials 
originated  with  the  heretics,  did  the  Church  hesitate  to 
follow  in  their  footsteps. 

4.  But  even  the  heretics  were  soon  convinced  that  they 
could  make  little  way  by  their  perversion  of  Scripture, 
and  had  recourse  to  the  falsification  of  it.  Dionysius  of 
Corinth  complains  (apud  Euseb.,  4,  23)  of  the  falsification 
(paStoupyi/o-ai)  of  the  Gospels  by  omissions  and  additions,  as 
Clement  of  Alexandria  of  their  fieTcmfleVai  (Strom.  4,  6;  comp. 
Origen's  complaint  of  the  /Aeraxapao-o-eiv  of  the  Valentinians, 
contra  Gels.,  2,  27,  as  well  as  of  Apelles,  who  evangelia 
purgavit,  of  which  he  is  also  accused  by  Epiph.,  fleer.,  44,  4). 
Of  Tatian,  we  are  told  that  he  rivae  </>GH'<T.S  TOV  a.Troa~r6\ov 
a>s  C7ri8io/>^ov/xevov  avrwi/  rrjv  T?} 


80          ORIGIN  OP  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

(Euseb.,  H.  E.,  4,  29),  and  Tertnllian  makes  a  general  com- 
plaint of  the  adjectiones  and  detraciiones  of  the  heretics 
(de  Prcesc.  Hcer.,  17,  38).  Thus  arose  the  heretical  remodel- 
lings  of  the  Canonical  Gospels,  such  as  the  so-called  Gospel 
to  the  Hebrews  which  in  its  later  forms  already  approaches 
a  harmonistic  elaboration  of  our  Gospels,  the  ewryyeXioy 
KO.T  AiyvTrriovs,  which  Clement  expressly  excludes  from  the 
transmitted  Gospels  (Strom.  3,  9,  13),  and  the  Gospel  of 
Peter  (comp.  §  7,  6).  How  far  the  evayye\tov  /cara  BacriXeiS?^ 
and  the  Evang.  Veritatis  of  the  later  Valentinians  were  re- 
modellings  of  this  character  or  original  fabrications  like 
the  so-called  apocryphal  Gospels,  we  do  not  know.  That 
such  were  not  wanting  is  shown  by  Irenaeus,  who  speaks 
of  a  &p.vOrjTOv  ir\T]6o<i  aTTOKpvffxav  KCU  v6Q<av  ypa<f>!av  As  avrot 
tTrXacrav  (adv.  Hcer.,  I.  20,  1,  comp.  Epiphanius,  Hcer.,  30,  23). 
The  so-called  pseudo-Clementine  literature  unquestionably 
belongs  to  this  category,  not  only  in  the  forms  of  it  which 
are  still  extant,  but  also  in  its  foundations  which  can  only 
be  determined  conjecturally.  We  have  here  a  bold  attempt 
to  falsify  the  KOVWV  -n}s  e/c/cA^cri'as  or  -njs  dAi^ctas,  which  is 
always  spoken  of  in  this  connection,  by  communicating 
sayings  of  Peter  with  a  precise  attestation  of  the  origin  of 
this  tradition,  and  putting  into  his  mouth  the  doctrinal 
views  peculiar  to  the  author  or  to  the  tendency  to  which 
he  belongs,  connecting  them  moreover  with  words  of  the 
Lord  in  our  four  Gospels.  To  this  literature,  which  is  itself 
a  kind  of  imitation  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  apocryphal 
Acts  are  attached,  such  as  the  gnostic  Acts  of  John  and 
Andrew,  which  have  to  some  extent  rather  the  character 
of  the  so-called  apocryphal  Gospels,  but  which  are  mainly 
characterized  by  a  tendency  to  fable.  Of  a  fabrication  of 
doctrinal  works  under  apostolic  names,  we  shall  hear  more 
in  the  Mnratorian  Canon  (§  10,  2;  comp.  also  Serapion, 
apud  Euseb.,  6,  12).  But  all  this  literary  activity  could 
have  little  influence  on  the  Church,  which  was  conscious 


THE  CANON  OF  APOSTOLIC  TRADITIONAL  DOCTRINE.   81 

of  possessing  the  veritas  scripturarum,  the  authenticce  litterce, 
from  which  it  rejected  this  adulteratio  scripturarum  (Tert., 
de  PrcBsc.  Hcer.,  19 ;  36 ;  38) -1  The  fact  that  heretical  views 
were  prominent  in  alleged  early  written  memorials,  could 
not  blind  her  to  what  was  foreign  and  contradictory  in 
them,  for  the  very  reason  that  the  Church  had  by  no  means 
derived  her  own  views  in  the  first  instance  from  written 
monuments,  but  from  a  living  oral  tradition  which  was  to 
her  the  criterion  of  all  professedly  genuine  documents. 
How  earnestly  she  guarded  against  the  admixture  of  any- 
thing spurious  may  be  seen  from  the  example  of  that  Asiatic 
presbyter  who  composed  the  Ada  Pauli  et  Theclce,  and 
though  maintaining  that  love  to  Paul  had  been  his  motive, 
was  yet  deposed  (Tert.,  de  Bapt.,  17). 

5.  After  this  only  one  step  remained  for  heresy  to  take 
viz.  to  break  with  apostolic  authority  altogether.  Even  the 
Church  itself  always  recognised  prophetic  authority  side  by 
side  with  apostolic ;  but  the  gift  of  prophecy  was  not  limited 
to  the  divine  men  of  the  old  covenant,  whose  prophecies 
were  recorded  in  0.  T.  Scripture  ;  it  lived  in  the  Church. 
The  Apocalypse  was  indeed  the  first  writing  of  the  kind 
to  which  Justin  appealed  (§  7,  4),  prophetic  utterances  of 
Paul  were  the  first  that  had  been  quoted  (§  7,  7)  ;  even  the 
Shepherd  of  Hermas  had  appeared  clothed  with  prophetic 

1  At  the  most,  slighter  remodellings  of  the  Gospels,  which  were  more 
difficult  of  detection,  might  hold  their  ground  in  the  Church  for  a  long 
time,  as  the  history  of  Peter's  Gospel  shows  (apud  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  6,  12  ; 
oomp.  §  7,  6),  the  more  readily  because  they  proceeded  from  a  time 
when  even  the  Church  did  not  consider  itself  bound  to  a  particular  form 
of  the  Lord's  words,  when  oral  tradition  with  its  free  and  living  capacity 
for  form  advanced  side  by  side  with  written  tradition  and  itself  unsus- 
pectingly added  many  a  trait  to  the  life-picture  of  the  Lord,  which  was 
in  keeping  only  with  later  representation.  But  as  soon  as  this  heretical 
remodelling  advanced  so  far  as  to  introduce  its  peculiar  views  that  stood 
in  opposition  to  the  living  image  of  the  Lord  in  the  Church  and  to  His 
doctrine  handed  down  by  the  apostles,  or  as  soon  as  this  foreign  stamp 
was  impressed  on  the  new  fabrications  a  priori,  the  Church  was  obliged 
to  reject  them. 

G 


82  ORIGIN   OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

authority.  Hence  Basilides  feigned  to  have  received  his 
wisdom  from  two  prophets,  with  whose  barbaric  names  he 
imposed  on  his  hearers  (Euseb.,  H.  E.,  4,  7),  hence  Mark  the 
Valentinian  professed  to  have  received  a  special  revelation 
respecting  the  Tetras  (Iren.,  adv.  Rccr.,  I.  14,  1)  ;  and  thus 
we  can  understand  how  they  wei-e  able  to  lay  claim  to  a 
wisdom  with  which  neither  a  Peter  nor  a  Paul  could  com- 
pare (13,  6).  But  there  was  yet  another  way  of  setting  up 
a  peculiar  authority  not  only  side  by  side  with  that  of  the 
apostles  but  even  in  opposition  to  it.  Already  in  apostolic 
times  there  was  a  party  which  refused  to  recognise  Paul  as 
an  apostle,  and  this  party  found  its  consistent  development 
only  in  heretical  Jewish  Christianity.  They  continued  to 
i-epudiate  Paul  as  an  apostate,  and  therefore  as  a  matter  of 
course  rejected  his  writings  also,  as  well  as  those  of  Luke, 
adhering  solely  to  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  (adv.  Hoer.t  I.  26, 
2;  III.  15,  1;  comp.  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  3,  27). ]  The  ultra- 
Pauline  Marcion  could  appeal  on  the  other  hand  to  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  in  order  to  prove  that  the  primitive 
apostles  were  unworthy  of  trust  (Tert.,  adv.  Marc.,  4,  3),  be- 
cause they  mixed  up  legalia  with  the  words  of  the  Redeemer 
(Iren.,  adv.  Hcer.t  III.  2,  2).  Hence  the  way  was  paved  for 
subjecting  apostolic  authority  itself  to  criticism  and  thus 
for  rejecting  it  as  such.9 

1  Epiphanins  says  that  they  possessed  an  Acts  of  their  own,  in  which 
James  played  the  principal  part,  while  it  contained  much  that  was  hostile 
to  Paul  (Ifcer.,  80,  16) ;  bat  the  Pseudo-Clementines  was  a  work  of  this 
kind,  in  which  James  appeared  as  the  highest  authority  of  the  Church, 
and  Paul  was  attacked  by  Peter,  under  the  mask  of  Simon  Magus  (comp. 
No.  4).  According  to  Euseb.,  H.E.,  4,  29,  the  Severians  also  rejected  the 
Epistles  of  Paul  and  the  Acts,  as  the  Corinthians  had  already  rejected  the 
apostle  Paul  entirely  (Epiph.,  liar.,  28,  6). 

*  They  want  to  be  emendatores  of  the  apostles,  they  turn  to  the  criti- 
cism of  the  "  Bcripturarum  ipsarum  quasi  non  recto  habeant  neque  siut  ex 
autoritate  "  (III.  1, 1 ;  2,  1),  they  stipulate  "quasdam  scriptnras  recipere, 
alias  "  (soil,  opinion!  resistentes)  rejicere  "  (Tert.,  de  Prater.  Hter.,  17 ;  de 
Game  Chr.,  3)  under  all  kinds  of  lying  pretexts  (Clem.,  Strom.  7,  16). 
Thus  Jeroine,*in  the  Free/,  ad  Tit.,  relates  that  Tatian  rejected  some  of 


THE  CANON  OF  APOSTOLIC  TRADITIONAL  DOCTRINE.   83 

6.  Granting  that  the  Ebionites  drew  their  origin  from  a  time 
when  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  alone  held  a  paramount  place 
even  in  the  Church,  its  tradition  being  decisive  (§  5,  6),  and 
supposing  it  to  be  certain  that  Valentine  himself  made  impar- 
tial use  of  the  ecclesiastical  Gospels  (No.  3,  note  2),  yet  Mar- 
cion  deliberately  rejected  those  Gospels  which  proceeded  from 
the  primitive  apostolic  circle,  for  the  very  reason  that  they 
went  back  to  the  authority  of  the  primitive  apostles  which 
he  refused  to  recognise  (Tert.,  adv.  Marc.,  34,  comp.  4,  5  ;  de 
Came  Chr.,  2).  He  was  therefore  acquainted  with  them  be- 
yond a  doubt,  and  knew  that  they  were  valid  in  the  Church 
by  virtue  of  their  direct  or  indirect  descent  from  the  primi- 
tive apostles  j  but  for  this  very  reason  he  was  obliged  to  reject 
them.  By  appealing  to  the  fact  that  Paul  speaks  only  of  one 
Gospel  and  not  of  several,  he  tries  to  prove  that  one  only  was 
valid,  which  he  does  not  seem  to  have  definitely  named  (adv. 
Marc.,4s,  2),  but  which  the  Church  Fathers  rightly  recognised 
as  a  mangled  Gospel  of  Luke  (Iren.,  I.  27,  2 ;  III.  12,  12) -1 
In  accordance  with  his  fundamental  principle,  moreover,  he 
could  accept  no  apostolic  epistle  proceeding  from  the  primi- 
tive apostolic  circle,  but  only  Pauline  epistles.  And  that  he 
mutilated  these  also  by  removing  all  that  was  not  in  har- 

the  Pauline  epistles  (probably  the  Epistles  to  Timothy  in  particular, 
comp.  Clem.,  Strom.  2,  11),  but  acknowledged  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  while 
Basilides  rejected  all  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  In  the  Philosophumena 
(7,  37)  we  read  that  Apelles  r(av  e6a.yyt\l<ov  •>}  TOV  airo<rr6\ov  rd.  apiaKovra. 
iavru  aipeirai ',  and  Irenseus,  who  speaks  incidentally  of  such  as  seem  to 
have  rejected  the  Gospel  as  well  as  the  Apocalypse  of  John  (adv.  Fleer.,  III. 
11,  9  ;  comp.  Epiph.,  Heer.,  51,  3),  finds  ihefirmitas  of  the  Gospels  con- 
firmed by  the  very  fact  that  each  of  the  heretics  selected  one  of  them — 
the  Ebionites  Matthew,  Marcion  Luke,  the  Cerinthians  Mark,  the  Valen- 
tinians  John  (adv.  Hcer.,  III.  11,  7).  But  Marcion  still  remains  the  chief 
representative  of  this  standpoint. 

1  Tertullian  intimates  that  his  pupils  were  always  altering  this  Gospel 
afresh  (adv.  Marc.,  4,  5),  for  which  reason  the  Gospel  that  Origen  and 
Epiphanius  found  with  Apelles  could  not  have  been  a  peculiar  one,  as 
Jerome  in  his  Procem.  in  Mattheeum  supposes,  but  a  still  further  muti- 
lated Gospel  of  Luke,  and  therefore  the  Gospel  that  his  pupils  afterwards 
designated  as  the  Gospel  of  Christ  absolutely. 


84          ORIGIN  OP  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

mony  with  his  own  views,  Irenaeus  expressly  states  (adv. 
Hcer.,  I.  27,  2 ;  III.  12,  12),  while  Tertullian  remarks  (adv. 
Marc.,  5,  21)  that  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  alone  escaped 
Marcion's  falsifying  hands,  on  account  of  its  brevity  (more 
correctly,  its  simplicity).  But  we  learn  from  the  same  pas- 
sage that  he  rejected  the  Pastoral  Epistles  also,  which  were 
obviously  least  in  sympathy  with  him,  since  their  polemic 
was  in  early  times  referred  to  the  Gnostic  errors  themselves. 
In  this  way  he  arrived  at  a  fixed  number  of  ten  Pauline 
epistles,  which  he  recognised  solely  and  exclusively  as  nor- 
mative writings,  in  the  following  order :  Gal.,  1st  and  2nd 
Cor.,  Rom.,  1st  and  2nd  Thess.,  Eph.  (to  which  however, 
following  Col.  iv.  16,  he  prefixed  the  title  ad  Laodicenses, 
comp.  Tert.,  adv.  Marc.,  5,  11,  17),  Col.,  Phil.,  and  Philemon. 
In  him  therefore  we  first  find  a  closed  Canon  of  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures.  This  phenomenon  is  adequately  ex- 
plained by  the  circumstance  that  the  heretics,  in  contend- 
ing for  their  peculiar  doctrines,  first  found  it  necessary  to  go 
back  to  the  written  memorials  of  apostolic  time  (No.  3),  and 
that  it  soon  became  apparent  that  they  could  not  vindicate 
their  standpoint  by  them  without  mutilating  them  (No.  4), 
selecting  and  definitely  curtailing  such  as  harmonized  with 
their  own  views.2 

7.  It  was  by  the  criticism  to  which  apostolic  authority  was 
thus  subjected  at  the  hands  of  the  heretics,  through  their  fal- 
sification and  rejection  of  apostolic  writings,  that  the  Church 

*  The  view  still  adhered  to  by  Ewald  and  Bleok,  viz.  that  Mnrcion  found 
a  collection  of  Pauline  epistles  of  this  kind  already  in  the  Church,  and 
either  adopted  it  in  its  entirety,  if  it  originally  consisted  only  of  these  ten 
letters,  or  made  selections  from  it,  is  utterly  wanting  in  historical  foun- 
dation. As  the  heretics  were  the  first  to  appeal  to  the  apostolic  writings 
at  all,  BO  they  proceeded  to  make  a  collection  and  limitation  of  those 
which  they  wished  to  recognise  as  exclusively  valid.  We  seo  clearly  the 
way  in  which  this  came  about,  but  do  not  of  course  imply  that  all  indivi- 
dual heretical  tendencies  made  every  step  of  this  way  in  the  same  man- 
ner, either  in  the  same  order  or  even  within  certain  proveable  spaces  of 
time. 


THE  CANON  OF  APOSTOLIC  TRADITIONAL  DOCTRINE.    85 

first  attained,  to  a  full  consciousness  of  what  she  possessed  in 
the  written  memorials  of  apostolic  time,  by  which  means 
these  came  to  be  ranked  as  equal  to  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Testament.  When  Credner  and  Reuss  represent  that  in 
accordance  with  the  characteristic  tendency  of  human  nature 
to  look  at  the  past  in  an  ideal  light,  the  office  and  calling  of 
the  apostles  gained  lustre  in  proportion  to  their  remoteness, 
this  is  altogether  unhistorical.  There  was  never  a  doubt  in 
the  Church  as  to  the  unique  calling  of  the  apostles  and  their 
special  equipment  for  it  by  the  Holy  Ghost  (§  6,  1,  2  ;  §  7,  4). 
The  only  new  thing  was  that  in  opposition  to  a  criticism 
which  attacked  the  doctrine  laid  down  in  the  apostolic 
writings,  this  spiritual  equipment  was  made  a  guarantee 
for  their  perfect  knowledge  of  truth  and  the  infallibility  of 
the  doctrine  set  forth  in  their  works.  Thus  these  works 
naturally  took  their  place  beside  the  prophetic  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  (Theoph.,  ad  Aut.,  3,  12  :  Sia  TO  TOVS  iravras 
•nvf.vfjiaro^6pov<s  evl  Tzrev/Acm  Oeov  \e\a\t] Kevai,  comp^.  ii.  22  : 
SiSacTKOvcriv  ^jU.as  ai  aytai  ypa<f>al  KCU  iravres  ot  Trveu/xaTO^o/Joi, 
by  which,  as  appears  from  what  follows,  the  apostles  are 
meant)  ;  in  them  the  Spirit  had  spoken  through  the  apostles, 
as  formerly  through  the  prophets  (Iren.,  adv.  Hcer.,  III.  21,  4 : 
"  unus  et  idem  spiritus  dei  qui  in  prophetis  quidem  pronun- 
tiavit — ipse  et  in  apostolis  annuntiavit ;  "  Tert.,  de  Pat.,  7  : 
"spiritus  domini  per  apostolum  pronuntiavit ;  "  comp.  Clem., 
Pcedag.  1,  6  :  TO  cv  TU>  a7rooroAa>  Trvev/xa  Xeyei,1  and  they  began 

1  For  this  very  reason  they  are  "  scripturas  perfect®,  quippe  a  verbo  dei 
et  spiritu  ejus  dicta  "  (Iren.,  adv.  Har.,  II.  28,  2  ;  cornp.  28,  3  :  &\wi>  ruv 
ypa<j>G)v  TTvevfj-ariKuv  oixr&v)  ypa<pal  6e^irvev<yToi  (Clem.,  Strom.  7, 16).  "Pro- 
phetarum  et  domini  et  apostolorutn  voces  "  now  stand  quite  on  a  par  (adv. 
Hcer.,  II.  2,  6),  what  "  scriptura  aliqua  retulit,  apostolus  dixit,  dominus 
docuit "  (28,  7).  The  apostolic  writings,  like  those  of  the  Old  Testament, 
now  come  under  the  conception  of  ypa<j>ai  absolutely,  or  ypa<pal  Betat 
(Iren.,  adv.  Hcer.,  I.  1,  3 ;  6,  3 ;  II.  27,  1 ;  Clem.,  Strom.  2,  2 ;  comp.  Ter- 
tullian,  de  Prascr.  Hcer.,  39 :  "  divina  litteratura,"  Apolog.,  39  :  "  litteras 
diviuaB,"  adv.  Hermog.,31 :  "  scriptura  divina  "),  of  Kvpiaicai  ypa<pal  (Iren., 
adv.  Hter.,  II.  30,  6  ;  V.  20,  2  :  "  dominica  scripturae  "),  of  /9//3Xot  Zytai 


86  ORIGIN   OP  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

to  be  quoted  exactly  like  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  first  in  whom  this  is  seen  with  the  clearness  of  a 
principle  is  Theophilus  of  Antioch.  Although  he  mainly 
interweaves  free  reminiscences  of  apostolic  writings  with 
his  own  composition,  yet  he  already  introduces  citations 
from  the  Pauline  epistles  with  the  words  xcAevci  ij/xas  6  0«ios 
Aoyos  (ad  Autol ,  3, 14).  So  too  in  the  Gospels,  it  is  no  longer 
as  before  the  Lord  speaking  in  them  that  appears  as  the 
authority,2  but  the  apostle  who  writes  them.  A  sentence 
of  John's  prologue  is  cited  as  the  doctrine  of  the  irvev/iaro- 
<f>6pot  e£  wv  "Itoaw^s  Xeyti  (ad  Autol.,  2,  22 ;  comp.  Iren.,  adv. 
Hcer.,  II.  2,  5 :  "  quemadmodum  Joannes  domini  discipulus 
ait :  "  Gospel  i.  3 ;  in  Irenaeus  we  read  "  spiritus  sanctus  per 
Matthaum  ait:"  Matt.  i.  18  (adv.  Hcer.,  III.  16,  2);  and  in 
Tertullian  :  "  ipse  imprimis  Matthaus,  fidelissimus  evangelii 
commentator  ita  exorsus  est:"  Matt.  i.  1  (de  Game  Ghristi, 
22;  comp.  Clem.,  Pcedag.  2,  1:  $170-1  6  AovKas).3  Bat  this 
putting  of  the  apostolic  writings  on  an  equality  with  those 
of  the  Old  Testament  must  have  found  immediate  expression 

(Clem.,  Pad.,  3, 12  ;  comp.  Tert.,  Apol.,  89  :*"  sanctoe  vocea  ").  They  are 
called T&  \oyta  roO  ffeou  (Iren.,  adv.  Har.,  I.  8,1',  comp.  Tert.,  Apol.,  32  : 
"  del  voces,"  de  Anim.,  28  :  "  sermo  divinus  "). 

2  Only  detached  sayings  of  the  Lord,  as  formerly  (§  6),  are  adduced. 
Comp.  Irm.,  adv.  liter.,  I.  4,  3  :  irepl  &»  6  Kvpiot  rjuwf  ttprjuev ;  Clem.,  Peed. 
I.  6,  8 :  tv  T<f  cuaYYfMtp  <fii}<ri  or  paprvpei  6  Kvpio*.  And  even  where  such 
sayings  are  adduced  they  are  already  authoritative  as  words  of  Scripture 
(Theoph.,  ad  Autol.,  3,  13,  14  :  i)  c&ayyl\tot  <f>ui>^  SiSdffKet,  TO  cvayyt\iow 
<f>T)<rl ;  comp.  Clem.,  Peed.  1,6:^  ypa<f>^  \4yei  iv  etayyeXlv),  as  naturally 
followed  from  the  Gospel  writings  having  been  accepted  as  such  (i  7). 

*  It  is  true  that  in  Clement  alone  passages  from  apostolic  epistles  are 
directly  cited  as  ypa^  (comp.  Coh.  ad  Gent.,  1 :  <f)i)<rl  i)  arcxrroXcin;  ypa<frq  : 
Tit.  iii.  3,  etc.).  Among  the  Church  Fathers  at  the  close  of  the  second 
century  they  are  almost  universally  cited  with  the  words  6  dr6<rro\ot  \^y<t, 
his  mme  being  in  most  cases  mentioned,  while  a  more  particular  account 
of  the  epistle  in  which  they  occur  is  frequently  given.  From  this  it  is 
clearly  seen  that  it  was  the  personal  authority  of  the  apostles  which  gave 
their  writings  their  importance  as  sacred  writings  in  the  Church,  and  not 
the  fact  of  their  belonging  to  a  collection  of  writings  to  which  such  im- 
portance inherently  belonged. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  AT  CLOSE   OF   SECOND   CENTURY     87 

in  the  fact  that  the  former,  like  the  latter,  were  read  at 
public  service,  although  this  is  only  casually  mentioned  in 
Tertullian  (de  Prcescr.  Hcer.,  36 :  "  apud  quas  ipsss  authen- 
tic® litteraa  apostolorum  recitantur,"  comp.  adv.  Marc.,  4,  5  : 
"  quid  legant  Philippenses,  Thessalonicenses,  Ephesii "). 
While  the  Gospels  became  sacred  writings  in  consequence  of 
being  read  in  the  Church  (§  7,  5),  the  ecclesiastical  reading 
of  the  Epistles  first  began  after  they  had  been  raised  to  the 
rank  of  sacred  writings. 

§  9.    THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  AT  THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  SECOND 
CENTURY. 

1.  When  the  apostolic  writings  were  promoted  to  the  rank 
of  sacred  books  equal  in  importance  to  those  of  the  Old 
Testament,  there  were  already  novce  Scripturce,  which,  on 
account  of  their  attestation  of  the  words  and  history  of  the 
Lord,  had  taken  their  place  beside  the  veteres  (comp.  Tert., 
adv.  Praxeam,  24 ;  "  novee  filinm  dei  prsefiniunt ")  ;  these  were 
the  Gospels  (§  7).  Hence  the  former  received  the  double 
appellation  of  TO,  evayyeXiKa  KOI  ra  aTrocrroXiKa.,  just  as  the 
latter  were  generally  termed  6  VO'/AOS  KOI  Trpo^rjrai.  (Iren.,  adv. 
Hcer.,  I.  3,  6).  Of  the  Church  it  is  said  that  she  "legem  et 
prophetas  cum  evangelicis  et  apostolicis  litteris  miscet "  (Tert., 
de  Prcescr.,  36)  ;  her  very  certainty  of  possessing  in  apostolic 
tradition  the  icavwv  -rifc  aA^eias  (§  7,  1)  consists  in  the  <n>/i- 
tfxavta.  v6fj.ov  Kal  irpo<f>r]T£>v  ofiou  ccal  airoa'ToXwv  <rvv  Kal  r<o  evay- 
(Clem.,  Strom.  7,  16  ;  comp.  3,  11 :  rov  avrov  6eov  8ia 
Kai  Trpo<j>yTu>v  KOI  cuayyeXiou  6  aTrocrroXos  Krjpvcrcret)  •  for 
which  reason  TO  eiayyeXiov  and  ot  aTro'oroXoi  stand  over 
against  the  prophets  (Strom.  7,  16) -1  But  since  the  law  and 

1  In  spite  of  this  co-ordination,  the  consciousness  that  the  Gospels 
formed  the  actual  foundation  of  the  new  sacred  Scriptures  is  not  yet 
obliterated,  for  which  reason  when  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  collec- 
tively are  termed  the  Prophets  or  the  Law,  these  are  frequently  character- 
ized as  the  Gospel  (Iren.,  adv.  Ear.,  II.  27, 2  :  "  universes  scriptures  divines, 


88          ORIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

the  prophets  formed  a  fixed  whole,  the  Gospels  and  the  apos- 
tolic writings  could  not  fail  soon  to  be  regarded  in  the  same 
light.  Ireneeus  already  speaks  of  utraque  Scriptura  dwina 
(adv.  Hcer.,  III.  19,  2),  and  Tertullian  of  utrumque  testa- 
mentum (adv.  Marc.,  1,  19) ;  and  the  latter  expressly  says 
that  the  name  testamentum  (already  occurring  in  Melito  of 
Sardis,  comp.  §  7,  7)  was  applied  to  the  collection  of  evan- 
gelical-apostolic writings,  as  well  as  to  the  prophetic.8  Hence 
there  is  now  a  Novum  in  addition  to  the  Veins  Testamentum 
(de  Prcescr.  Hcer.,  30),  nor  can  it  be  doubted  that  Clement 
already  employs  ^  iroAcua  and  rj  via.  SiaOujKij  in  this  sense 
(Strom.  5,  13;  comp.  3,  6,  11,  18;  4,  21).  But  the  New 
Testament  collection  was  still,  so  to  speak,  an  indefinite  quan- 
tity.8 It  is  true  there  was  no  doubt  that  the  only  Gospels 

prophetise  et  evangelia  ;  "  Clem.,  Padag.  1,  5:  rb  evayyAtor  in  opposition 
to  Tpo<f>rrreta ;  comp.  Strom.  3,  9;  4,  1;  Tert.,  adv.  Marc.,  1,  19,  where 
Old  and  New  Testament  stand  over  against  one  another  as  lex  and  evan- 
gelium).  In  like  manner,  the  recollection  is  preserved  that  the  words  of 
the  Lord  originally  procured  for  those  Gospels  attesting  them,  the  rank 
of  sacred  writings,  in  the  antithesis  of  apostolica  litterce  and  dominicce 
pronunciation**  (Tert.,  de  Priescr.  Hcer.,  4  ;  comp.  cap.  44  :  "  dominicte  et 
apostolicffl  scripture  et  denunciationes ;  "  de  Bapt.,  15 :  "  tarn  ex  domini 
evang.  quam  ex  apost.  litteris  ").  Comp.  Iren.,  adv.  HOT.,  II.  2,  6  :  "  ex 
ipsis  apostolis  et  ex  domini  sermonibus." 

3  Comp.  adv.  Marc., 4, 1 :  "  alterum  alterius  instrument!  vel  quod  magis 
usui  est  dicere  testamenti."  The  expression  instrumentum,  which  occurs 
only  in  Tertullian,  denotes  means  of  proof  in  a  juridical  sense.  The 
apostolic  writings  are  the  instrumenta  doctrinte  (de  Prate.  Hcer.,  88), 
i.e.  the  documents  from  which  right  doctrine  may  be  proved.  Every 
apostolic  writing  is  an  instrument  of  this  kind  (comp.  de  Returr.  Cam., 
83  ;  Instr.  Joannit,  cap.  40 ;  Instr.  Pauli,  adv  Marc.,  5,  2  ;  Iiutr.  Actorum) ; 
but  just  as  the  prophets  collectively  form  such  an  instrument  (de  Ret. 
Cam.,  83)  as  also  the  Gospels  (adv.  Mare.,  4,  2),  so  likewise  do  the  various 
instrumenta  apostolica  (de  Res.  Cam.,  89)  form  such  a  one.  Finally 
all  Holy  Scripture  is  "  totum  instrumentum  utriusque  testamenti  "  (ado. 
Prax.,  20). 

*  That  there  were  two  closed  collections  called  rb  ei'oyyAtov  and 
6  dr&rroXot  respectively,  as  Eichhorn  and  Bertholdt,  Schott  and  de 
Wette,  and  to  some  extent  even  Benss,  assume,  is  an  obvious  error,  since 
the  former  denotes  not  merely  the  four  Gospels,  but  the  contents  of  the 
New  Testament  Scriptures  in  general,  as  opposed  to  the  Old  (comp. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  AT  CLOSE   OP   SECOND  CENTUBY.   89 

were  the  four  traditional  ones  (§  7,  6)  ;  but  we  shall  see  from 
what  motive  the  Acts,  which  was  neither  an  evangelical  nor 
apostolic  writing,  was  added  to  these.  Moreover,  the  num- 
ber of  apostolic  epistles  was  not  definitely  settled ;  and  just 
as  the  Apocalypse  was  almost  universally  joined  with  the 
Gospels,  so  too  other  writings  that  were  neither  apostolic  nor 
yet  epistles,  were  cited  and  reckoned  as  belonging  to  the 
New  Testament.  A  closer  examination  of  the  sacred  writ- 
ings acknowledged  by  Irenaeus,  Clement  and  Tertullian  will 
show  that  at  this  time  there  was  not  yet  an  exclusive  collec- 
tion of  apostolic  writings,  viz.  a  closed  Canon  in  our  sense, 
and  will  explain  the  reason  of  this.*  It  was  only  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  the  oral  teaching  of  the  apostles  that  the  evange- 
lical and  apostolic  writings  collectively  assumed  the  form  of 
a  Canon  by  which  to  determine  what  pertained  to  truth  and 
faith  and  what  was  at  variance  with  them.  But  we  find  no 
definite  statement  as  to  the  individual  writings  belonging  to 
it :  there  is  a  closed  evangelicum  instrumentum,  it  is  true,  but 
not  an  apostolicum  (comp.  Note  2).  Comp.  Ronsch,  Das  Neue 
Testament  Tertullians,  Leipz.  1871. 

2.  It  must  not  be  overlooked  that  the  two  portions  of 
which  the  New  Testament  consisted  at  the  close  of  the  second 


Note  1).  That  citations  are  so  often  made  with  the  words  6  1&ir6<TTo\os 
X£y«,  especially  in  Clement  (§  8,  7 ;  Note  3),  is  accounted  for  simply  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  the  apostle  Paul  whose  numerous  writings  were 
chiefly  used,  and  who  is  therefore  spoken  of  as  the  Apostle  absolutely 
(comp.  Strom.  7,  3),  while  reference  is  incidentally  made  to  John  i.  17  in 
the  words  Ka.rh.Tbv  &ir6ffro\ov  (Quis Dives  Salvus,  8). 

4  When  Clement  speaks  of  an  evayyeXt/cdj  Kavtav  (Strom.  3,  9),  it  is  the 
Kavuv  T^S  &\r)0elas  (§  7,  1),  inasmuch  as  it  is  taken  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment writings  (Note  1 ;  comp.  Tert.,  de  Prcescr.  H<er.t  36 :  "legem  et  pro- 
phetas  cum  evang.  et  apostol.  litteris  miscet,  inde  potat  fidem  ").  In  the 
same  sense  Irenaeus  says  that  John,  in  the  prologue  to  his  Gospel,  tried 
"  regulam  veritatis  constituere  in  ecclesia  "  (adv.  Hcer.,HI.  11, 1),  and  calls 
the  writings  of  the  apostles  "  fundamentum  et  columnam  fidei  nostra  " 
(III.  1, 1).  When  he  says  that  we  have  the  sermones  dei  as  regula  veritatis 
(IV.  35, 4),  we  know  that  the  sacred  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  aid 
meant  as  well  as  the  Gospels  and  the  apostolic  writings  (§  8,  7). 


90  ORIGIN   OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

century,  had  been  formed  from  totally  different  points  of 
view.  Where  the  apostolic  writings  were  concerned,  the 
question  turned  on  the  written  memorials  of  the  men  who 
by  virtue  of  their  calling  and  equipment  had  the  sole  right 
of  decision  as  to  what  alone  was  the  true  doctrine  of  Christ. 
On  the  other  hand,  where  the  evangelical  writings  were 
concerned,  the  point  in  question  was,  what  Gospels  had  been 
current  in  the  Church  from  early  times  as  trustworthy  docu- 
ments, in  which  the  words  and  life  of  the  Lord  would  be 
authentically  transmitted ;  by  which  it  was  not  intended 
originally  to  cast  any  reflection  on  the  person  of  their 
authors.  But  as  soon  as  these  two  parts  were  made  into  a 
whole,  it  became  necessary  to  consider  this  whole  from  the 
same  point  of  view  from  which  a  New  Testament  collection 
of  sacred  books  had  taken  its  place  side  by  side  with  those 
of  the  Old  Testament,  i.e.  it  was  necessary  to  examine  how 
far  the  Gospels  belonging  to  it  contained  genuine  apostolic 
tradition.  This  is  the  point  of  view  taken  up  by  Ireneeus 
in  his  disquisitions  respecting  the  origin  of  the  four 
Gospels  (adv.  fleer.,  HI.  1,  1),  according  to  which  Mark,  6 
fj.a.6r)Tr)S  Kal  fp/j.yvevTrjs  Htrpov  (comp.  also  10,  6)  TO.  vtro  Utrpov 
Kr}pv<rcr6fJL€va  €yyptt<£cus  •fjiuv  iraptSwuev,  and  Luke,  6  dicoXovdo? 
Hav\ov,  TO  VTT*  fKeivov  KTr]pvartr6fjL(vov  eiayyeXiov  cv  ftiftXiia  KOTC- 
0eTo.  Moreover,  following  Luke  i.  2,  he  emphasizes  the  fact 
that  the  latter  "  qu»  ab  apostolis  didicerat,  tmdidit  nobis  " 
(14,  2,  comp.  10,  1).  It  is  Tertullian  who  more  than  any 
other  with  far-reaching  acuteness,  makes  the  authoritative 
statement,  "  e vangelicum  instrumentum  apostolos  auctores 
•habere,  quibus  hoc  munus  evangelii  promnlgandi  ab  ipso 
domino  sit  impositum  "  (adv.  Jforc.,4, 2).  But  the  four  tra- 
ditional Gospels  were  not  in  harmony  with  this  standpoint 
(comp.  Clem.,  Strom.  3,  13),  since  two  of  them  unquestion- 
ably proceeded  only  from  apostolic  disciples ;  *  and  yet  the 

1  It  is  most  interesting  to  see  how  Tert.  is  for  ever  seeking  to  vindicate 
the  recognition  of  these  two,  in  opposition  to  his  former  principle.    He 


NEW   TESTAMENT  AT   CLOSE   OP   SECOND   CENTUBY.    91 

Church  already  felt  herself  bound  by  this  tradition  (§  7,  6) 
It  is  of  moment  for  the  history  of  the  formation  of  the 
Canon,  that  the  impossibility  of  carrying  out  the  principle 
of  apostolicity,  which  properly  speaking  was  of  necessity 

involved  in  the  idea  of  a  Canon,  was  thus  demonstrated  a 

,    ,  » 

priori. 

3.  But  Luke's  Acts  of  the  Apostles  also  belonged  to  those 
writings  which  were  highly  prized  by  the  Church  on  account 
of  their  value  as  early  documents,  and  the  recognition  of 
which  she  must  see  to  be  absolutely  assured.  For  the  out- 
pouring of  the  Spirit  on  the  apostles,  which  was  the  foun- 
dation of  all  the  importance  now  attached  to  their  writings, 
for  the  apostolic  authority  of  Paul,  whose  works  always 
formed  the  chief  mass  of  the  dbroo-ToXiKa,  for  the  founding  of 
the  Church  in  general,  and  that  of  the  apostolic  Churches 
in  particular,  whose  position  was  now  one  of  such  decided 
importance  (§  8,  2),  this  book  was  in  the  eyes  of  the  Church 
of  that  time  the  sole  means  of  proof.1  Yet  it  neither  pro- 

first  appeals  to  the  fact  that  the  "  prssdicatio  discipulorum  suspecta 
fieri  possit  de  glorias  studio,  si  non  adsistat  illi  auctoritas  magis- 
trorum,  immo  Ghristi  qui  magistros  apostolos  fecit."  Then  he  urges 
that,  "  nobis  fidem  ex  apostolis  Johannes  et  Matthasus  insinuant,  ex 
apostolicis  Lucas  et  Marcus  instaurant,  iisdemregulisexorsi"  (adv.  Marc., 
4,  2).  .  Finally,  he  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  "apud  universas  (eccle- 
sias)  evangelium  Lucss  ah  initio  editionis  suaa  stare.  Eadem  auctoritas 
ecclegiarum  apostolicarum  ceteris  quoque  patrocinahitur  evangeliis,  quae 
proinde  per  illas  et  secundum  illas  habemus,  Joannis  dico  et  Mattliasi, 
licet  et  Marcus  quod  edidit,  Petri  affirmetur,  cujus  interpres  Marcus. 
Nam  et  Luc®  digestum  Paulo  adscribere  solent.  Capit  magistrorum 
videri  qua  discipuli  promulgarint  "  (4,  5). 

1  Hence  Irenseus  regards  it  as  providential  that  much  of  Luke's  Gos- 
pel has  been  communicated  by  him  alone,  since  the  heretics  neither 
can  nor  will  give  this  up,  because  they  are  thus  compelled  to  recognise 
the  "  testificatio  des  Lucas  de  actibus  et  doctrina  apostolorum,"  in 
particular  the  calling  of  Paul  to  be  an  apostle  (adv.  Hcer.,  HI,  15,  1). 
Tertullian  points  out  to  them  that  they  can  know  nothing  whatever  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  the  Church  which  they  wish  to  defend,  without 
the  Act  us  Apostolorum  (as  Irenaeus  also  incidentally  calls  the  book,  adv. 
H<sr.,  HI,  13, 3) ;  and  that  they  cannot  even  appeal  to  Paul  against  the 
primitive  apostles,  since  they  knew  nothing  of  him  whatever  without 


92  ORIGIN  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

ceeded  from  an  apostle  whose  authority  would  have  justi- 
fied its  reception  among  the  sacred  books,  nor  could  it  be 
supported  on  the  plea  of  early  usage,  like  the  primitive 
documents  respecting  the  acts  and  teaching  of  the  Lord, 
much,  less  on  the  a  priori  assumption  of  a  special  inspiration. 
It  is  from  the  fact  of  Luke's  presence  as  an  eye-witness  of 
the  most  important  parts  of  the  life  of  Paul,  from  the  way 
in  which  he  is  accredited  by  Paul  and  in  which  the  com- 
position of  the  Gospel  is  entrusted  to  him,  that  Ireneeus 
proves  his  credibility  (adv.  Har.,  III.  14,  1),  as  Tertullian 
proves  it  from  his  agreement  with  Paul  (adv.  Marc.,  5,  2 ; 
comp.  Iren.,  adv.  Hcer.,  III.  13,  3).  Clement  of  Alexandria 
also  employs  the  7rpa£eis  raiv  aTroo-roAwv  chiefly  as  an 
historical  source  (Pcedag.  2,  1 ;  comp.  Strom.  1, 18,  19,  23), 
but  even  as  such  it  was  absolutely  indispensable  to  the 
Church;  and  when  the  writings  recognised  by  the  Church 
as  authoritative  were  put  together  in  the  New  Testament,  it 
was  necessarily  included  among  them,  although  not  fully 
coinciding  with  the  standpoint  to  which  either  part  owed 
its  recognition.  Thus  a  second  point  was  raised  on  which 
every  attempt  to  form  a  Canon  from  one  initial  standpoint 
must  have  foundered,  even  if  the  matter  had  been  made  a 
subject  of  reflection.9 

4.  The  Pauline  epistles  naturally  form  the  larger  portion 

this  book,  his  own  testimony  not  being  sufficient  (de  Prater.  Ear.,  22, 
23). 

3  But  Clement  was  also  acquainted  with  a  K^pvjfia  Hfrpov,  which,  like 
the  Acts,  must  have  given  an  account  of  the  sayings  and  doings  of  Peter; 
and  since  he  holds  the  tradition  therein  contained  to  be  authentic,  lie 
might  just  as  well  have  quoted  it  as  the  other  (Strom.  1,  29  ;  2,  15 ;  5, 
5 ;  6,  15)  and  have  received  it  into  his  New  Testament,  although  the 
West  seems  to  know  nothing  of  it.  On  the  other  hand  it  does  not  follow 
from  Strom.  2,  9  that  he  acknowledged  the  ra/>a5<5<r«j  of  Matthias  in  the 
same  way  (comp.  §  7,  6,  note  2).  It  does  not  at  all  appear  that  his 
saying  which  he  mentions  in  8,  4  is  taken  from  this  writing,  or  that 
the  heretics  who  appealed  to  him  (7,  17),  made  use  of  it,  for  which 
reason,  moreover,  it  cannot  be  concluded  from  this  passage  that  he  re- 
jected it. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  AT  CLOSE   OF  SECOND  CENTUBT.   93 

of  those  apostolic  writings  "which  go  to  make  up  the  New 
Testament.1  In  Irenseus,  Tertullian  and  Clement,  twelve 
Pauline  epistles  are  expressly  cited,  i.e.  are  handed  down 
collectively  tinder  his  name,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Epistle  to  Philemon,  which,  on  account  of  its  brevity  and  the 
doctrinal  unimportance  of  its  contents,  offered  no  induce- 
ment for  such  classification.  For  we  learn  quite  incidentally 
from  Tertnllian  that  he  was  nevertheless  well  acquainted 
with  it  (comp.  adv.  Marc.,  5,  21  and  with  it  §  8,  6).  But  it 
does  not  by  any  means  appear  that  they  had  these  epistles 
before  them  in  the  form  of  a  concluded  collection  and 
in  fixed  succession.2  On  the  contrary  we  see  how  in  the 
case  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  views  differed  even  as  to 
the  works  that  proceeded  from  Paul.  By  Clement  who 
regarded  it  as  Pauline  at  least  in  its  alleged  Hebraic  basis 
(Euseb.,  H.E.,  6,  14),  it  is  frequently  cited  in  closest  connec- 
tion with  passages  in  other  Pauline  epistles  (comp.  Strom. 

2,  2;  6,  8;  7,  1).      Theophilus  has  merely  an  allusion  to 
the  contrast  of  milk  and  strong  meat  (2,  25,  comp.  Heb. 
v.  12),  while  Ireneeus  shows  no  trace  of  it.3     There  is  in 

1  In  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  only  one  express  citation  occurs,  in  which 
Tit.  iii.  1 ;   1  Tim.  ii.  1  f.  axe  connected  with  Bom.  xiii.  7  f.  (ad  Autol., 

3,  14) ;   but   references,  more   or  less  plain,  are  found  to  almost  all 
the  others ;  and  the  fact  that  we  find  no  trace  of  the  Galatian  or  2nd 
Thessalonian  Epistle  as  well  as  Philemon,  has  no  significance  what- 
ever. 

2  Attempts  like  those  made  by  Credner  and  Volkmar,  to  prove  from 
Tertullian  where  he  goes  over  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  a  collection  of 
this  kind  did  exist,  are  all  in  vain,  since  in  his  account  of  the  books 
he  never  adheres  to  the  same  number,  much  less  the  same  order.    That 
the  unknown  saying  of  Paul  quoted  by  Clement  (Strom.  6,  5)  proceeds 
from  an  apocryphal  or  lost  writing,  is  scarcely  probable.    Like  the  say- 
ing of  Matthias  (No.  3,  note  2)  it  may  have  had  its  origin  in  oral  tradition. 

*  True,  he  is  said  to  have  mentioned  it  and  quoted  some  passages 
from  it  in  a  work  that  has  been  lost  to  us  (Euseb.,  H.E.,  5, 26 :  (nvijuovevet 
prird  riva  0-  afrrwv  va.pa.6tij.evos),  but  from  the  fact  that  in  his  attack  on 
the  heretics  he  nowhere  makes  use  of  an  epistle  so  valuable  on  account 
of  its  doctrine,  it  only  follows  the  more  certainly  how  far  he  was  from 
regarding  it  as  Pauline  or  even  apostolic. 


94          ORIGIN  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

fact  no  reason  to  doubt  the  statement  of  Stephen  Gobar  in 
the  sixth  century  (ap.  Phot.  Bibl.,  cod.  232)  that  he  declares 
it  to  be  unpauline.  Moreover  it  is  evident  that  Tertullian 
is  quite  unaware  that  anybody  holds  it  to  be  Pauline ;  he 
knows  it  only  as  an  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  of  a  "  vir  satis  auc- 
toratus,  qui  ab  apostolis  didicit  et  cum  apostolis  docnit," 
and  hints  that  it  is  received  by  many  of  the  Churches. 
But  however  highly  he  values  the  epistle,  and  however 
well  it  suits  his  purpose,  yet  he  will  only  "  nur  ex  redun- 
dantia  alicujus  etiam  comitis  apostolorum  testimonium  su- 
perducere,  idoneum  confirmandi  de  proximo  jure  discipli- 
nam  magistrorum  "  (de  Pudic.,  20).  In  his  view,  therefore, 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  not  a  sacred  book  of  the  New 
Testament,  because  it  does  not  belong  to  the  apostolic 
writings ;  and  the  fact  that  it  was  already  received  by  many 
in  his  circle,  only  proves  that  when  the  works  of  apostolic 
disciples  had  once  been  admitted  into  the  New  Testament 
(No.  2,  3),  the  principle  of  recognising  only  apostolic  works 
as  authoritative,  was  no  longer  firmly  adhered  to,  even  in 
contrast  to  epistolary  literature. 

5.  Still  less  can  we  suppose  that  there  was  a  concluded 
collection  of  writings  proceeding  from  the  circle  of  the 
primitive  apostles,  such  as,  in  Ewald's  opinion,  was  joined 
to  the  collection  of  Pauline  letters  in  the  beginning  of 
the  century.  True,  it  is  admitted  as  a  matter  of  course 
that  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter,  which  was  already  known  to 
the  Roman  Clement  and  was  used  by  Polycarp  and  Papias 
(§  6,  7),  was  already  reckoned  with  the  apostolic  epistles. 
It  is  expressly  cited,  sometimes  repeatedly,  by  Irenoeus  (adv. 
Ear.,  IV.  16,  5,  comp.  1  Pet.  ii.  16),  Tertullian  (Scarp.  12, 
comp.  1  Pet.  ii.  20,  etc.)  and  Clement  (Pcedag.,  I.  6,  comp. 
1  Pet.  ii.  1-3).  On  the  other  hand  they  show  no  trace  of 
the  second  Epistle  of  Peter.1  So  also  it  may  be  taken  for 

1  The  fact  that  Irenmus  quotes  the  first :  "  Petrus  ait  in  epistola  BUS 
(adv.  //a:/-.,  IV.  9,  2),  and  Clement :  6  IMrpot  iv  rg  £TUTTO\V  (Utroin,  '6, 


NEW  TESTAMENT  AT   CLOSE   OF   SECOND   CENTURY.    95 

granted  that  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  which  together  with 
the  Gospel,  was  obviously  known  from  the  beginning  (§  5, 
7),  was  reckoned  as  part  of  the  New  Testament  by  the 
Fathers  at  the  end  of  the  second  century  ;  and  the  fact  that 
no  reminiscence  of  it  is  found  in  Theophilus  can  only  be 
accidental.  But  Irenseus  repeatedly  cites  it  as  Johannine 
(adv.  Hcer.,  III.  16,  8,  comp.  1  John  iv.  1  ff. ;  v.  1),  likewise 
Tertullian  (adv.  Prax.,  15,  comp.  1  John  i.  1),  and  Clement 
(Pcedag.  III.  11,  comp.  1  John  iv.  7;  v.  3;  ii.  3-6)  ;  and  in 
Irenceus  and  Clement  a  second  is  joined  with  it.3  The  fact 
that  the  third  Epistle  is  never  quoted  does  not  prove  that  it 
was  still  unknown  to  these  Church  Fathers,  if  we  take  into 
account  its  brevity  and  the  doctrinal  unimportance  of  its 
contents ;  but  neither  can  the  contrary  be  proved.  It  is 
more  remarkable  that  the  Epistle  of  James,  already  so  much 
used  by  Hermas  (§  6,  4),  and  from  which  Theophilus  (ad. 
Autol.,  I,  2)  seems  to  copy,  should  never  be  quoted.  In  the 
case  of  Irenseus  and  Tertullian  it  may  indeed  be  accounted 
for  simply  by  assuming  that  they  did  not  look  upon  the 
author  of  the  epistle  as  an  apostle,  and  correctly  so  ;  but  in 

18),  if  we  take  into  account  the  way  in  which  the  Church  Fathers  ex- 
pressed themselves,  does  not  indeed  prove  that  they  were  not  acquainted 
with  a  second  one  by  him  (vid.  infra)  ;  but  a  citation  from  so  impor- 
tant an  epistle  could  not  be  wanting  had  they  known  it,  while  even  the 
remarkable  echo  of  the  whole  context  of  2  Pet.  ii.  4-7  inlren.,  adv.  Har., 
IV.  36,  4,  cannot  be  proved,  for  want  of  the  Greek  text.  Yet  the  aOtfu- 
TOS  elSuXoXarpda  (1,  14;  2,  34)  and  the  v\6.vi]  •jrarpoirapdSoTos  (2,  24)  in 
Theophilus  form  a  scarcely  mistakeable  reference  to  1  Pet.  iv.  3  ;  i.  18, 
while  the  alleged  echoes  of  2  Pet.  i.  19,  ff.  (2,  9.  13)  prove  nothing. 

2  It  is  quite  clear  in  this  case  that  the  citation  formula,  "  in  epistola 
sua  testificatus  est "  (Iren.,  adv.  Hcer.,  III.  16,  5),  does  not  exclude  the 
knowledge  of  a  second  Epistle  :  for  in  I.  16,  3,  Irenseus  expressly  cites 
2  John  11 ;  though  in  III.  16,  8  (in  praedicta  epistola)  he  erroneously 
attributes  the  passage  2  John  7,  etc.  to  the  first  Epistle,  where  some- 
thing similar  is  at  least  to  be  found.  So  too  Clement  (Strom.  3,  4)  cites 
the  passage  1  John  i.  6  £.  with  the  woids  <f>rjfflv  6  'Iw&vvv  iv  TJ,  <?»•«• 
oroXfl,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  passage  1  John  v.  16,  with  the  words 
iv  TV  ^etfiSw  tirt<TTo\ii,  thus  showing  plainly  that  he  knows  at  least  one 
smaller  one.  But  no  trace  of  either  is  found  in  Tertullian. 


96          ORIGIN  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

Tertullian  no  trace  of  an  acquaintance  with  it  can  be  shown, 
though  such  acquaintance  is  not  quite  improbable,  at  least 
in  the  case  of  Irenrous.8  On  the  other  hand  Clement,  who 
neither  cites  it  nor  shows  any  reminiscence  of  it,  can  scarcely 
have  been  acquainted  with  it,  since  he  does  not,  as  has  fre- 
quently been  supposed,  identify  the  brother  of  the  Lord 
with  the  apostle  James,  though  he  undoubtedly  reckons  him 
an  apostle  in  the  wide  sense  and  as  belonging  to  the  true 
Gnostics  (comp.  Euseb.,  H.E.,  2, 1,  and  with  it  §  36,  2 ;  also 
Strom.  1,  1 ;  6,  8),  to  whom  Christ  originally  committed  the 
truth,  and  therefore  he  had  no  reason  for  excluding  a  work 
by  him  from  the  apostolic  collection.4  The  Epistle  of  Jude, 

8  When  in  Tert.,  adv.  Jud.,  2,  we  read  that "  Abraham  arnicas  dei  depu- 
tatu3  est,"  this  view,  taken  from  Isa.  xli.  8 ;  2  Chron.  xx.  7  and  character- 
istic of  Philo,  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  and  certainly  of  all  Jewish  tradition, 
had  already  become  current  among  Christian  authors  (comp.  1  Clem,  ad 
Cor.  10,  1 ;  17,  2,  and  after  him  in  Clem.  Alex.  Padag.  3,  2,  and  fre- 
quently in  the  Strom.),  so  that  the  mediation  of  James  ii.  23  was  by  no 
means  necessary.  All  other  reminiscences  professedly  discovered  are 
entirely  wanting  in  proof.  It  is  quite  different  with  Irenrous,  for  though 
adv.  Har. ,  IV.  13,4,  might  easily  be  explained  in  the  same  way,  the 
combination  with  Gen.  xv.  6  in  IV.  16, 2  leads  to  a  verbal  reproduction  of 
Jas.  iv.  23,  so  that  tbe  assumption  of  acquaintance  with  this  passage  is 
difficult  to  controvert.  But  in  this  case  the  "  factum  initium  facturm  " 
(V.  1,  1)  might  also  be  a  reminiscence  of  Jas.  i.  18. 

4  All  that  has  been  brought  forward,  apart  from  the  designation  of 
Abraham  as  the  friend  of  God  (comp.  note  3),  to  prove  a  knowledge  of 
the  Epistle  of  James,  such  as  the  corresponding  torn  of  the  expression 
in  Matt.  v.  37  and  Jas.  v.  12,  the  designation  of  him  wbo  fulfils  the  law 
of  love  as  /3a<rtXt»c<5j  (comp.  Jas.  ii.  8),  and  the  &iroKVTj8cts  of  regeneration 
(comp.  Jas.  i.  18),  is  not  decisive.  Eusebius  indeed  asserts  (II. E.,  6, 
14),  that  Clement  in  the  Hypotyposes  gave  a  short  explanation  of  tbe 
whole  iviiaOfiKi}  ypa<f>^,  /«jW  T&J  d.vT&eyofi.frcu  ira.pc\0uv,  rty  'louta  X£yo> 
KO.I  r&t  XoiTras  KatfoXu-Aj  lviaro\dt,  but  this  very  mention  of  the  Epistle  of 
Jade  makes  it  most  improbable  that  Eusebius  actually  referred  to  all 
seven ;  and  the  way  in  which  Photius  (Bibl.  cod.,  109)  speaks  of  explan- 
ations of  the  Pauline  and  Catholic  Epistles  is  too  general  to  lead  us  to 
the  conclusion  that  he  explained  all.  In  the  Adumbrationes  (taken  ac- 
cording to  Zahn  from  the  Hypotyposes,  comp.  Fortchungen  zur  Oetchichte 
dei  NTlichen  Kanon,  3,  Erlang,  1884)  as  a  matter  of  fact  we  find  explan- 
ations only  of  1  Pet.,  Jude,  1  and  2  John,  whose  use  in  Clement  can  be 
directly  proved  ;  and  when  Cassiodorus  in  the  Instit.  Divin.  Lect.,  chap.  8, 


NEW  TESTAMENT  AT   CLOSE    OF   SECOND   CENTUEY.    97 

of  which  as  yet  we  have  found  no  trace,  is  neither  mentioned 
nor  made  use  of  by  Irenaeus ;  Tertullian  only  remarks  inci- 
dentally that  "Enoch  apud  Judam  apostolum  testimonium 
possidet  "  (de  Cultu  Fern.,  1,  3),  from  which  we  see  that  he 
counted  it  a  sacred  writing,  and  also  looked  upon  its  author 
as  an  apostle.  Clement  quotes  it  repeatedly  (Pcedag.  3,  2  ; 
Strom.  3,  2),  and  treats  it  as  a  prophetic  warning  of  the 
heresies  of  his  time ;  but  it  does  not  at  all  appear  that  he 
identified  the  author  with  one  of  the  Twelve,  as  Tertullian 
seems  to  have  done.  Nevertheless  he  may  have  looked 
upon  this  brother  of  the  honoured  James,  who  as  the  SouAos 
lycrov  X/JIO-TOV  addresses  the  Church,  as  an  apostle  in  the 
wider  sense.  We  have  here  but  another  argument  against 
the  existence  of  a  closed  collection  of  apostolic  epistles, 
since  the  circle  of  apostles  was  not  yet  strictly  limited. 
Just  as  in  the  Didache,  the  travelling  evangelists  are  still 
called  apostles  (comp.  also  Hermas  Sim.  IX.  15,  4  and  with 
it  §  6,  1),  so  too  Clement  calls  the  Roman  Clement  an 
apostle  (Strom.  4,  17)  and  Barnabas  too  (Strom.  2,  6  f.), 
although  on  another  occasion  he  terms  him  an  aTrocrroAtKos, 
who  was  one  of  the  Seventy  and  a  co-worker  with  the 
apostle  Paul  (2,  20 ;  comp.  5,  10,  and  the  passage  from 
the  Hypotyposes  apud.  Euscb.,  H.E.,  2,  1).  Hence  he  too 
repeatedly  cites  the  Epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians 
(Strom.  1,  7;  5,  12;  6,  8),  as  well  as  the  Epistle  of  Bar- 
nabas (2,  15),  like  any  other  New  Testament  writing.  But 
even  apart  from  the  way  in  which  Clement,  by  the  extended 
conception  of  an  apostle,  was  thus  included  in  the  category, 
writings  of  apostolic  disciples  were  also  as  a  matter  of  fact 
received  among  the  sacred  books,  along  with  the  Gospels 
and  the  Acts;  and  although  their  normal  character  was 

names  these  very  epistles  as  explained  in  the  Hypotyposes,  and  only  by 
an  obvious  error  substitutes  the  Epistle  of  James  for  that  of  Jude,  his 
more  special  account  undoubtedly  corrects  and  modifies  that  of  Euso- 
bius. 


98  ORIGIN   OP   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   CANON. 

finally  made  to  rest  upon  the  authentication  of  genuine 
apostolic  doctrine,  yetit  might  certainly  be  concluded  that 
these  writings  also  transmitted  such  doctrine  in  a  true  and 
unadulterated  form,  as  had  formerly  been  the  case  with  the 
oral  teaching  of  the  apostles  (§  8,  1). 

6.  But  there  was  yet  another  point  of  view,  under  which 
the  circle  of  sacred  N.  T.  writings  was  still  further  extended. 
From  the  time  of  Justin  the  Johannine  Apocalypse  had 
belonged  to  the  <rvyypdiJ.p.a.Ta  of  the  Christians  (§  7,  4).  It 
certainly  proceeded  from  the  apostle  John ;  but  it  was  by 
no  means  the  authentication  of  genuine  apostolic  doctrine 
that  made  it  so  important  in  the  oyes  of  the  Church,  but  the 
prophecies  which  it  contained  respecting  the  future  of  the 
kingdom  of  God.  Nevertheless,  on  account  of  its  apostolic 
origin,  it  could  not  be  excluded  from  the  books  which  now 
formed  the  New  Testament.  Eusebius  tells  us  of  Theophilus 
(H.  E.,  4,  24),  that  in  his  work  against  Hermogenes,  he  «*c 
•n/s  uTTOKoA.ui/'ecDS  'Iwavvov  Ke^pi/rai  /napTvpuus  (comp.  ad  Auiol., 
2,  28  :  Saiftwv  8«  /cat  8pa.K(»v  icaXcirat  with  Apoc.  xii.  9),  and  in 
all  the  Church  Fathers  of  this  time  it  is  cited  as  a  sacred 
writing,  Iren.,  adv.  Hcer.,  IV.  20, 11 ;  V.  26, 1 ;  Tert.,  de  Prefer. 
Hair.,  33 ;  adv.  Marc.,  3, 14  ;  4,  5 ;  Clem.,  Peed.,  2, 10 ;  Strain. 
6,  13).  But  Clement  was  also  acquainted  with  an  Apoca- 
lypse of  Peter,  on  which,  according  to  Eusebius  (H.  E.,  6, 
14),  as  well  as  on  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  he  commented  in 
the  Hypotyposes,  and  which  could  not  have  had  less  impor- 
tance in  his  view  than  the  Johannine  sacred  writings,  although 
it  only  appears  to  be  cited  in  the  «Xoyal  e*  TGJV  Trpo<f>rjriKiav. 
And  because  the  real  value  of  these  apocalypses,  notwith- 
standing their  apostolic  origin,  consisted  in  the  prophecies 
which  they  contained,  and  which  were  warranted  not  by  the 
apostolicity  of  their  authors  in  the  sense  of  §  8,  1,  but  by  the 
revelations  that  had  been  granted  to  them,  there  was  no 
reason  whatever  for  rejecting  an  apocalyptic  writing  that 
did  not  procee/1  from  an  apostle.  Thus  in  Clement,  the 


NEW  TESTAMENT   AT   CLOSE   OF   SECOND   CENTURY.    99 

Shepherd  of  Hennas  is  frequently  quoted  as  a  sacred  writ- 
ing (Strom.  2,  9 ;  6,  6)  ;  it  is  even  the  ayycXos  rJJs  ^eravotas 
(ii.  17)  or  the  Suva/us  17  T<3  'E/j/x,a  Kara  airoKaXvij/iv  XaXorcra, 
which  in  it  0«cos  <f>r)<riv  (1,  29 ;  comp.  2.  1).  Nor  is  there  any 
reason  why  we  should  not  accept  the  /caAGs  ewrcv  rj  ypa<£i/  fj 
Aeyovcra,  with  which  Irenaeus  (adv.  Hcer.,  IV.  20,  2)  introduces 
a  passage  of  Hermas,  as  an  actual  quotation  from  Scripture. 
Although  according  to  Tertullian  the  "  scriptura  Pastoris,  qua3 
sola  moechos  amat,"  does  not  deserve  "  divino  instrumento  in- 
incidi"  (de  Pud.,  10),  yet  it  is  only  because  of  his  prejudice 
against  its  contents. and  not  on  fundamental  grounds  that 
he  determines  to  reject  it.1 

7.  It  is  thus  sufficiently  established  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  by  no  means  a  concluded  collection  at  the  end  of 
the  second  century  (No.  1) ;  but  it  has  also  been  shown  why 
this  could  not  have  been  the  case.  Even  if  from  the  point  of 
view  that  led  to  the  origin  of  a  New  Testament,  we  try  to 
come  to  a  well-founded  decision  respecting  what  ought  to 
belong  to  it,  we  have  no  premisses.1  But  it  was  no  longer 

1  But  when  he  says  that  the  work  "  ab  omni  cousilio  ecclesiarum  inter 
apocrypha  et  falsa  judicatur,"  this  is  merely  a  passionate  exaggeration, 
as  in  truth  he  himself  shows  when  soon  after  he  says  that  Barnabas's 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (No.  4)  is  "  utique  receptior  apud  ecclesias  illo 
apocrypho  pastore  mceehorum  "  (cap.  20).  For  this  at  any  rate  implies 
that  the  Shepherd  also  was  received  by  some,  as,  for  example,  Irenaeus ; 
nor  is  it  at  all  certain  that  Tertullian  himself  (de  Oratione,  16)  only  refers 
to  it  ironically,  and  does  not  rather,  in  his  pre-Montantist  tune  when  he 
was  still  unprejudiced  against  it,  make  impartial  use  of  it. 

1  In  the  first  place  the  circle  of  apostolic  writings  was  by  no  means 
uniform.  Irenseus  and  Clement  are  acquainted  with  a  second  Johannine 
epistle,  Tertullian  not ;  Clement  and  Tertullian  know  the  Epistle  of  Jude, 
which  Irenseus  does  not  know ;  while  the  latter  again  seems  to  know  the 
Epistle  of  James,  which  the  former  do  not  know.  Clement  is  acquainted 
with  an  Apocalypse  of  Peter,  of  which  the  others  know  nothing.  Even 
of  that  which  has  been  uniformly  handed  down,  it  is  not  always  certain 
whether  it  is  apostolic.  In  Alexandria  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is 
looked  upon  as  Pauline,  in  North  Africa  as  a  work  of  Barnabas ;  the 
Epistle  of  Jude  is  in  the  latter  place  regarded  as  apostolic,  in  the  former 
probably  not.  There  is  not  even  unanimity  as  to  who  are  apostles. 
Clement  reckons  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  and  even  the  Boman 


100        ORIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

possible  in  deciding  the  question  as  to  what  books  should 
belong  to  the  New  Testament,  to  adhere  to  the  exclusive 
validity  of  the  apostolic  writings,  as  sacred  books.  For  the 
Gospels  had  long  been  sacred  in  the  usage  of  the  Church ;  and 
two  of  them  were  non-apostolic.  It  was  equally  impossible, 
for  practical  reasons,  to  give  up  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
which  were  also  non-apostolic ;  and  yet  other  writings,  such 
as  the  Kr/pvy/Lia  IIcVpov,  where  they  were  known,  made  similar 
pretensions.  Moreover  the  point  of  view  under  which  these 
primitive  records  of  the  history  of  Christianity  had  been  re- 
ceived among  the  Holy  Scriptures  differed  entirely  from  that 
under  which  the  apostolic  records  had  become  sacred  writ- 
ings ;  while  the  Apocalypses  with  their  revelations  came  under 
a  third  standpoint.2  Hence  it  was  impossible  to  agree,  even 
if  the  attempt  had  been  made,  as  to  the  point  of  view  in 
accordance  with  which  the  choice  of  New  Testament  books 

Clement  and  Barnabas  among  them ;  while  Tertullian  very  decidedly 
distinguishes  the  latter  from  the  apostles.  But  these  differences  are 
not  yet  felt ;  as  yet  there  is  no  dispute  on  the  subject;  each  one  uses  as 
apostolic  what  he  knows,  or  thinks  he  knows  to  have  proceeded  from  the 
apostles  in  his  sense  of  the  word,  without  reflecting  that  a  different 
opinion  prevails  elsewhere. 

3  It  is  incomprehensible  how  Ewald  could  still  say  that  the  only  test- 
question  011  receiving  a  book  into  the  New  Testament  was  whether  it 
contained  the  true  word  of  Christ  and  the  Spirit  emanating  from  Him; 
and  the  earlier  the  time  the  less  were  the  feeling  and  judgment  of  the 
best  Christians  likely  to  go  astray.  For  the  word  and  spirit  of  Christ 
formed  the  very  point  on  which  the  controversy  with  heresy  turned,  and 
it  waa  only  for  the  purpose  of  settling  this  definitely  that  reference  had 
been  made  back  to  the  primitive  documents  of  apostolic  time.  Where 
such  a  principle  would  lead,  is  shown  by  the  untenable  opinion  of  Tertnl- 
lian  respecting  the  Shepherd  of  Herman.  Though  Credner  says  that 
direct  or  indirect  apostolic  descent  was  accepted  as  the  New  Testament 
principle,  usage  being  made  the  essential  principle  in  each  individual 
case,  yet  there  was  no  usage  where  the  writings  regarded  as  apostolic 
were  concerned ;  and  the  notion  of  an  indirect  apostolic  descent  was 
simply  an  expedient  for  getting  over  the  discrepancy  of  the  use  of  the 
Gospels  with  the  standpoint  from  which  the  New  Testament  started.  It 
is  Tertullian  himself  who  in  an  incidental  reflection  on  usage  as  applied 
to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  asserts  the  principle  of  apostolicity  as  such, 
in  opposition  to  it. 


NEW   TESTAMENT  AT   CLOSE    OF   SECOND   CENTURY.  101 

should  be  made,  since  this  differed  even  with  respect  to  those 
portions  of  the  New  Testament  which  were  universally  ac- 
cepted. But  there  was  no  reason  whatever  to  discuss  the 
question,  since  the  differences  that  had  necessarily  arisen 
within  the  range  of  the  New  Testament  were  not  yet  per- 
ceived and  therefore  formed  no  stumbling-block.  The 
Church  on  her  side  required  no  collection  of  writings  whence 
to  extract  what  was  pure  doctrine,  in  which  case  it  would 
have  been  necessary  first  of  all  to  come  to  an  agreement 
as  to  the  sources  of  pure  doctrine.  She  did  not  reject 
heretical  compositions  on  account  of  their  not  belonging  to 
such  a  collection,  but  because  they  were  opposed  to  the  apos- 
tolic doctrine  that  had  been  handed  down,  and  which  she 
now  tried  to  set  forth  as  divinely  accredited  only  by  her  own 
sacred  writings.  Whatever  from  any  standpoint  could  lay 
claim  to  belong  to  these,  and  answered  such  end,  was  welcome; 
and  the  consciousness  of  the  possession  would  not  have  been 
disturbed  even  if  it  had  been  known  that  the  possession  of 
others  was  less  rich.  Hence  it  was  impossible  to  form  a 
Canon,  i.e.  to  come  to  a  decision  as  to  what  writings  should 
exclusively  belong  to  the  New  Testament;  And  when  the  need 
of  such  a  settlement  did  arise,  the  Church  was  already  bound 
by  her  own  past,  and  so  hindered  from  forming  a  decision  on 
any  fixed  principle.  This  very  time,  when  the  Canon  was  in 
process  of  formation,  bequeathed  to  the  time  that  followed,  an 
inheritance  that  gave  rise  to  constant  doubts,  and  ultimately 
made  a  determination  on  any  fixed  principle  impossible.3 

'  According  to  this,  the  view  that  the  New  Testament  Canon  originated 
simultaneously  with  the  Catholic  Church,  whi«h  has  recently  become  pre- 
valent (comp.  e.gr.  Holtzmann,  Einleitung) ,  must  be  distinctly  contested. 
Nor  is  Harnack's  view  (comp.  his  Lehrb.  d.  Dogmengesch.,  Freiburg,  1886), 
that  although  not  yet  closed  in  the  Churches  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria 
it  was  closed  in  the  Romish  Church  of  Asia  Minor  in  the  course  of  the 
second  century,  and  therefore  already  appears  as  a  made  up  quantity  in 
Irenes  and  Tertullian,  capable  of  pr  of.  All  that  he  brings  forward  in 
favour  of  this  view  applies  only  to  the  Canon  of  the  Gospels.  The  pre- 
eumption  with  which  he  sets  out,  viz.  that  in  selecting  for  it  the  tradi- 


102        ORIGIN   OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  CANON. 

§  10.    THK  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  FORMATION  or  TUB  NEW 
TESTAMENT  CANON. 

1.  The  constant  reading  of  the  New  Testament  writings 
at  divine  service  (§  8,  7),  combined  with  the  consciousness 
that  they  formed  an  integral  whole  as  contrasted  with  the 
Old  Testament  (§  9,  1),  naturally  gave  rise  to  the  need  of 
putting  these  writings  together  in  manuscripts.  Hence  ori- 
ginated, and  that  spontaneously,  the  necessity  of  coming  to  a 
decision  as  to  which  of  the  current  writings  should  be  read  in 
the  Church,  and  thus  receive  the  rank  of  sacred  books  on  a  par 
with  those  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  certain  that  we  now 
possess  no  such  manuscripts  proceeding  from  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century ;  but  from  the  old  Syriac  translation  of 
the  Bible,  the  so-called  Peshito,  which  was  unquestionably 
arranged  for  ecclesiastical  use,  we  see  what  N.  T.  writings 
were  read  in  the  Syrian  Church  at  that  time.1  These  were 
the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  thirteen  Pauline 
epistles  along  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Epistles 
of  1  Peter,  1  John,  and  James.  Owing  to  the  fluctuation  of 
their  sequence  in  the  manuscripts,  we  can  unfortunately  no 
longer  ascertain  the  original  order ;  it  is  only  certain  that 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  joined  to  those  of  Paul 
(being  in  the  first  instance  placed  at  the  end,  after  the 

tional  reading-books  were  adhered  to,  is  incorrect,  since  it  can  be  proved 
that  the  ecclesiastical  reading  of  the  epistles  was  a  consequence  of  their 
elevation  to  the  rank  of  sacred  writings  (§  8,  7).  But  the  view  common 
to  both,  that  some  of  the  transmitted  writings,  such  as  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  James,  1  Peter,  or  perhaps  even  the  Apocalypse,  were  only 
arranged  for  the  Canon  in  accordance  with  the  point  of  view  by  which  it 
was  regulated,  is  entirely  groundless. 

1  The  opinion  of  J.  D.  Michaelis,  that  the  translation  did  not  originally 
contain  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  has  been  thoroughly  refuted  by  Hug ; 
but  the  view  of  the  latter,  that  it  originally  contained  all  our  present  New 
Testament  writings  and  that  those  wanting  in  the  manuscripts  were 
first  left  out  in  the  fourth  century,  although  adopted  again  by  Hilgenfeld, 
is  entirely  unfounded,  and  needs  no  contradiction.  Comp.  Wicbelhaus. 
de  Novi  Tettamenti  antiqua  quam  Peschitho  vacant,  libri  iv.,  Hal.,  1850. 


BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   CANON.   103 

epistles  to  single  persons)  even  where  these  were  preceded 
by  the  three  epistles  emanating  from  the  primitive  apostolic 
circle,  or  where  the  Acts  come  between  them  and  the  latter. 
It  cannot  surprise  us  that  of  the  primitive  apostolic  epistles 
only  1  Peter  and  John  should  appear  in  the  translation,  since 
we  found  no  trace  of  2  Peter  even  among  the  Church 
teachers  at  the  end  of  the  second  century ;  and  of  the  two 
smaller  Johannine  epistles,  a  partial  knowledge  and  use  of 
the  second  only.  But  it  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  the 
Epistle  of  Jude,  which  was  known  to  Tertullian  as  an  apos- 
tolic writing  and  was  repeatedly  used  by  Clement,  is-  here 
wanting,  while  on  the  contrary  the  Epistle  of  James,  which 
was  used  by  none  of  the  Church  Fathers,  is  included.  But 
the  absence  of  the  Apocalypse,  after  all  that  has  already  been 
said  of  the  use  and  repute  of  this  work,  cannot  possibly  be 
accounted  for  on  the  assumption  that  it  was  not  regarded  as 
apostolic  by  the  Syrian  Church,  or  was  rejected  as  a  book 
that  did  not  contain  genuine  revelation.  It  seems  rather  to 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that  this  book  was  not  read  at  divine 
service  in  the  Syrian  Church ;  a  circumstance  which  might 
easily  be  explained  by  the  difficulty  of  understanding  its 
visions  and  prophecies,  as  well  as  by  the  fact  that  the 
reading  of  the  apostolic  writings  along  with  the  Gospels  was 
intended  to  keep  the  Church  in  mind  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
apostles. 

2.  Without  doubt  a  Latin  translation  was  also  prepared  at 
that  time  for  the  Latin-speaking  Churches  ;  but  although  it 
appears  that  the  old  translator  of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian 
used  such  a  one  in  common  with  others,  yet  it  is  obviously 
impossible  to  determine  its  extent  or  even  its  order.  Instead 
of  it  we  have  a  most  remarkable  document  emanating  from 
the  Latin  Church,  presenting  the  first  attempt  with  which  we 
are  acquainted  towards  a  definite  determination  of  the  books 
that  should  have  public  recognition  in  the  Church,  and  in 
so  far  the  first  actual  attempt  to  form  a  Canon  iu  the  Church. 


104        OBIGIN   OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

It  is  the  so-called  Muratorian  Fragment.  Its  origin  and 
date  are  indeed  very  uncertain ;  but  the  examination  of  itself 
proves  clearly  enough  that  it  belongs  to  the  time  when  the 
Canon  was  in  process  of  formation,  and  proceeds  from  the 
Latin  Church. 

The  Fragment  was  first  published  by  Lad.  Ant.  Maratori  (Antiquitatei 
Italica  med.  eevi,  1740,  iii.,  pp.  851  ff.),  from  a  parchment  MS.  of  the 
Ambrosian  Library  in  Milan,  found  in  the  Bobbio  Monastery,  and  belong- 
ing at  the  latest  to  the  ninth  century,  afterwards  repeatedly  collated  and 
edited  (comp.  8.  P.  Tregelles,  Canon.  Murat.,  ed.  Oxford,  1867,  and 
Harnack  in  Brieger's  Zeittchrift  fUr  Kirchengetch.,  iii.,  1879,  pp.  595  ff.), 
The  beginning  is  missing,  and  the  Latin  is  in  many  places  so  very 
obscure  that  it  gives  rise  to  the  most  varied  interpretations.  Whether  it 
is  an  awkward  translation  from  the  Greek,  as  Hug,  Tregelles,  Mangold 
and  especially  Hilgenfeld  maintain,  although  the  play  on  words  in  fel 
cum  melle  makes  this  very  improbable,  or  whether  it  is  only  the  lingun 
vulgata  distorted  by  Scottish-English  pronunciation  and  the  orthography 
of  the  ninth  century,  as  it  was  spoken  in  Africa,  as  Credner  seeks  to 
prove,  or  whether  the  obscurities  are  mainly  due  to  corruptions  of  the 
Text  and  may  be  cleared  up  by  conjecture,  is  still  matter  of  dispute. 
The  view  of  the  first  editor,  that  the  document  proceeded  from  the 
Roman  presbyter  Caius,  has  been  supported  only  by  Volkmar.  The  date 
is  generally  drawn  from  the  statement  contained  in  the  fragment,  that 
the  Shepherd  of  Hennas  was  written  "nuperrime  nostris  temporibus 
sedente  cathedra  nrbis  Rorara  ecclesiaa  Pio  episcopo  fratre  ejus,"  and 
is  mostly  put  at  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century,  since  Pius  was 
bishop  down  to  the  second  half  of  the  fiftieth  year  (Wieseler,  170 ;  Cred- 
ner, Harnack,  170-90 ;  Volkmar,  after  190 ;  immediately  before  or  con- 
temporaneous with  Ireneus  :  Hesse,  Hilgenfeld).  But  we  must  not  over- 
look the  fact  that  this  determination  of  time,  taking  the  context  into 
consideration,  was  only  meant  to  show  the  wide  interval  between  the 
Shepherd  and  the  apostolic  time  ;  and  since  Ireneus  could  say  that  the 
Apocalypse,  which  according  to  him  was  composed  under  Domitian,  waa 
Been  oiJ  vpb  roXXoO  XP^VOV  axttiov  irl  rijt  r)/j.ertpat  ytre&t  (adv.  Hatr. ,  V. 
30,  3),  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  with  Hug  come  down  to 
the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  It  is  also  matter  of  dispute  as  to 
whether  the  Fragment  proceeded  from  the  Romish  Church,  or  from  North 
Africa  as  seems  to  be  indicated  by  the  language,  as  well  as  by  many 
points  of  contact  with  the  views  of  Tertullian  ;  so  too,  hi  what  connec- 
tion the  author  was  led  to  discuss  the  New  Testament  books,  and  what 
was  his  object.  Compare  on  the  Fragment,  R.  Wieseler,  Stud.  u.  Krit., 
1847,  4;  v.  Gilse,  ditputatio  de  antiquitsimo  libr.  tacr.  not.  ford,  catalogo, 
Amst.  1852;  Laurent,  Neitttitamentl.  Studien,  Gotha,  1880;  Hesse,  da* 


BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON.   105 

Muratorische  Fragment,  Giessen,  1873 ;  Harnack,  ibid.,  1879,  pp.  358  ff. ; 
Overbeck,  zur  Gesch.  des  Kanons,  Chemnitz,  1880. 

It  is  beyond  doubt  that  the  author  acknowledges  the 
four  Gospels  and-  supplies  further  information  respecting 
their  origin,  although  the  section  on  Luke  and  John  alone 
is  fully  preserved.  He  expressly  points  out  that  in  spite 
of  their  differences,  especially  at  the  beginning,  they  attest 
all  the  facts  in  the  life  of  Jesus  in  the  same  spirit,  as 
•well  as  His  second  coming  in  glory.1  He  joins  the  Acta 
Apostolorum  written  by  Luke  directly  with  the  Gospels, 
and  then  passes  on  to  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  He  looks 
on  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  Galatians,  and  Romans 
as  the  most  important,  giving  a  short  description  of  their 
contents,  because  they  are  the  most  copious.  He  then 
sets  forth  how  Paul,  after  the  example  of  John  who  in 
the  Apocalypse,  in  the  seven  specially  named  Churches, 
addressed  himself  to  the  whole  Church,  makes  the  seven 
Churches  to  which  he  wrote  (in  the  following  order,  Cor., 
Eph.,  Phil.,  Col.,  Gal.,  Thess.,  Rom.,  and  repeatedly  to  two 
of  them)  representative  of  the  whole  Church.  Hence  he 
feels  it  necessary  to  explain  with  what  right  the  letters 
written  to  individual  Churches  may  now  be  regarded  as  the 
common  possession  of  the  Church.  The  necessity  is  even 
stronger  where  the  four  epistles  written  by  Paul  pro  affectu 
et  dilectione  to  single  individuals,  are  concerned,  and  which 
are  nevertheless  in  Jionore  ecclesioK  catholicce,  because  they 
are  normative  for  ecclesiastica  disciplina,  and  are  thus  sancti- 
ficatce?  Throughout  the  whole  of  this  larger  division,  the 

1  It  is  an  obvious  error  to  suppose  that  he  seeks  to  establish  or  even  to 
defend  the  genuineness  of  the  fourth  Gospel  from  the  Johannine  epistle, 
as  is  frequently  asserted  (comp.  Mangold),  since  on  the  contrary  at  the 
beginning  of  the  epistle  he  explains  the  many  reminiscences  of  the  Gospel 
on  the  supposition  of  a  reference  to  it.    But  the  notices  respecting  its 
origin  have  as  little  tendency  in  this  direction  as   those  on  Luke's 
Gospel. 

2  The  words  certainly  do  not  imply  that  their  reception  was  opposed 
or  their  Pauline  origin  doubted ;  nor  can  I  agree  with  Harnack  in  his 


106        ORIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

question  of  recognition  does  not  come  in  at  all,  being  taken 
for  granted  where  the  Gospels,  the  Acts,  and  the  Pauline 
Epistles  are  concerned.  Only  at  the  end  are  some  spurious 
Pauline  Epistles  excluded,  as  to  whose  exclusion,  however, 
there  can  be  no  question  in  the  Church,  because  they  are 
heretical  compositions.8 

3.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  entirely  wanting  among 
the  writings  proceeding  from  the  primitive  apostolic  circle, 
because,  as  with  Irenaens  and  Tertullian,  it  does  not  come 
under  consideration  as  apostolic,  which  is  the  case  also  with 
the  Epistles  of  Clement  and  Barnabas.  From  this  it  appears 
that  the  principle  of  apostolicity  holds  good,  at  least  where 
the  epistles  are  concerned.  Therefore  the  Epistle  to  Jude 
which,  along  with  the  two  Johannine  Epistles  already  men- 
tioned with  the  Gospel,  unquestionably  appears  as  valid  in 
the  Church,  was  certainly  regarded  as  apostolic,  as  it  is  by 
Tertullian.  In  any  case  these  epistles  (epistola  sane  Judce  et 
siiperscriptio  Jdhannis  duos  in  catholica  Jidbentur)  seem  to 
have  been  considered  rather  as  an  appendix  to  the  apostolic 
collection  of  epistles,  because  the  proper  task  of  the  primi- 
tive apostles  appeared  to  be  to  hand  down  the  acts  and 
words  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels ;  for  which  reason  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  expressly  prefaced  by  the  remark  that  it  is  not 
Rtrange  si  Johannes  sinyula  etiam  in  epistulis  suisproferat  (No 

assumption  that  a  new  principle  of  ecclesiastical  validity  was  here  laid 
down.  It  is  generally  overlooked  that  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  is  placed 
in  the  same  category  with  the  so-called  Pastoral  Epistles.  Hence  the 
only  thing  to  be  explained  is  how  letters  manifestly  private  could  attain 
to  the  rank  of  sacred  books  in  the  Church. 

*  There  is  an  Ep.  ad  Laodicenses  and  one  ad  Alexandrines,  Fault 
nomine  Jictee  ad  hareiem  Marcionit  et  alia  plura,  qua  in  catholicam 
fccletiasm  recipi  non  potett,  because  fel  cum  melU  non  congruit.  The 
Laodicean  Epistle  was  plainly  a  fiction  on  the  basis  of  Col.  iv.  16  f., 
perhaps  only  the  Ephesian  Epistle,  mutilated  by  Marcion  and  called 
the  Laodicean  Epistle,  is  meant ;  that  the  Alexandrian  Epistle  should 
refer  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  quite  impossible,  since  the  latter 
neither  bears  the  name  of  Paul,  nor  could  any  one  regard  it  as  Mar- 
cionitio,  nor  can  it  have  been  addrrFsed  to  Alexandria.  Comp.  §  31,  6. 


BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   CANON.  107 

2,  note  1)  ;  and  here  in  the  certainly  mis- written  superscriptio 
we  have  at  all  events  some  kind  of  reference  to  it.1  Pro- 
bably this  also  explains  the  enigmatical  silence  with  regard 
to  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter.  For  it  is  quite  possible  that 
it  was  mentioned  in  the  section  on  Mark's  Gospel,  which 
is  unfortunately  wanting,  and  which  like  the  rest  must  be 
traced  back  to  communications  made  by  Peter.  If  so,  it 
cannot  fail  to  have  been  observed  that  so  many  of  Christ's 
sayings  are  repeated  in  this  epistle  as  passages  from  the 
history  of  His  passion.8  And  it  is  only  on  the  assumption 
of  a  fuller  treatment  of  it  and  its  relation  to  the  Gospel  in 
this  missing  section  that  we  can  account  for  its  being  passed 
over  here ;  while  the  indefinite  epistulce  suce,  to  which  refer- 
ence was  made  in  John's  Gospel,  is  here  expressly  termed  a 

1  Perhaps  the  still  unexplained  et  (probably  tit)  sapientia  ab  amicis 
Salomonis  in  honorem  ipsius  scripta,  which,  if  taken  as  a  recognition  of 
an  Old  Testament  Scripture,  or  even  as  analogous  to  the  circumstance 
that  the  Epistles  of  John,  though  bearing  no  name,  were  written  by 
friends  in  his  honour,  still  remains  unintelligible  in  this  connection, 
may  be  most  easily  explained  on  the  supposition  that  the  primitive 
apostles  are  spoken  of  as  the  friends  of  Christ  the  second  Solomon,  and 
that  besides  their  record  of  his  sayings,  they  also  wrote  these  epistles  in 
honour  of  Him.  But  it  cannot  therefore  be  said  that  these  epistles  were 
of  doubtful  genuineness,  or  that  they  formed  only  a  second  class  with 
respect  to  canonicity.  That  which  habetur  in  ecclesia,  is  receptum  and 
sanctificatum  without  question. 

3  Perhaps  the  remaining  portion  that  has  been  preserved  of  this 
section  :  quibus  tamen  interfuit,  et  ita  posuit,  does  not  refer  to  Mark  as 
is  generally  supposed,  though  his  Gospel  is  never  in  tradition  represented 
as  the  testimony  of  an  eye-witness,  and  its  appendix,  even  if  already 
known  to  the  author  of  the  Fragment,  is  too  unimportant  to  be  separately 
described,  but  as  Laurent  already  guessed,  though  without  perceiving  the 
right  application,  to  Peter,  who  in  1  Peter  v.  1  calls  himself  /tA/wi/j  T&V 
TOO  XpurroO  iradr)/j.dTuv,  and  in  fact  in  i.  18  f. ;  ii.  21-24,  describes  His 
death-sufferings  with  vivid  clearness,  and  speaks  of  His  resurrection, 
i.  3,  as  one  who  had  himself  lived  to  see  it  (comp.  i.  21).  That  the  way  in 
which  a  mention  of  it  and  even  a  mention  of  both  Petrine  Epistles,  is 
by  conjecture  put  into  the  Fragment,  is  mere  arbitrary  interpretation, 
may  now  be  regarded  as  admitted ;  and  that  it  was  excluded  on  account 
of  its  being  addressed  to  individual  Churches,  as  Harnack  maintains,  I 
hold  to  be  quite  impossible. 


108        ORIGIN  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

duas  Jokanni*.9  It  is  certain  that  in  addition  to  the  Apo- 
calypse of  John,  that  of  Peter,  already  mentioned  in  the 
Pauline  epistles,  and  known  likewise  to  Clement  as  we  have 
seen,  was  also  received.  If  it  be  objected  that  some  did  not 
approve  of  its  being  read  in  the  Church,  we  may  account  for 
this  on  the  same  ground  on  which  the  Syriac  Church -bible 
refused  to  accept  the  Apocalypse  of  John  (No.  I).4  The 
tantum  in  the  statement  respecting  the  apocalypses  is  ex- 
pressly directed  against  the  Apocalypse  of  Hennas,  which 
as  we  have  seen,  was  used  by  Ireneeus  and  Clement,  and  re- 
jected even  by  Tertullian  on  merely  subjective  grounds, 
when  its  contents  did  not  suit  his  purpose.5  The  author 
distinctly  asserts  the  principle  that  even  apocalyptic  writ- 
ings can  only  lay  claim  to  the  character  of  official  ecclesi- 
astical writings  when  they  proceed  from  apostles,  quite 
apart  from  the  value  of  their  contents,  that  is  to  say,  the 

*  From  this  it  is  clear  that  we  cannot  here  assume  a  reference  to  the 
second  and  third  Epistle,  and  make  the  plural  Epistulee  refer  only  to  the 
first,  as  Credner,  Hesse  and  Hilgenfeld  do.    The  third  Epistle,  of  which 
as  yet  we  have  found  no  notice,  was  in  any  case  little  adapted  for  recep- 
tion into  the  Church-bible,  since  it  had  nothing  to  recommend  it,  as  the 
Pauline  private  letters  had. 

4  There  is  something  so  striking  in  the  fact  that  in  the  words  "  apo- 
calypse etiam  Johannis  et  Petri  tantum  recipimus  qnara  qnidam  ex 
nostris  legi  in  ecclesia  nolunt,"  doubtless  to  some  extent  corrupted,  the 
quam  is  made  to  refer  only  to  the  latter,  that  it  is  possible  this  legi 
nolunt  originally  referred  to  both  apocalypses.  But  it  is  quite  an  error 
to  suppose  that  one  or  both  were  by  this  means  made  valid  only  in  a 
secondary  degree. 

•  This  rejection  is  certainly  not  shared  by  our  author,  since  he  ex- 
pressly says,  "  legi  eum  (pastorem)  quidem  oportct,"  which  of  course 
did  not  refer  to  the  reading  at  public  service,  whence  it  would  have  re- 
ceived unquestioned  official  ecclesiastical  validity,  but  to  private  reading- 
But  the  book  is  not  only  permitted  to  be  read ;  the  author  manifestly 
belongs  to  those  of  whom  Eusebius  say.s,  v<j>'  tripiav  8t  dvayKo.ivra.Tor  oft 
H&XicrTa.  8«  trroixciufftut  clffayuyiKijs  K^Kpirat  (II.  /£.,  iii.  3).     On  the  con- 
trary the  reference  is  to  those  among  whom,  as  Eusebius  adds,  it  was  <V 
iKK\r}fflau  SfSrjfioffievfjLifov,  when  he  expressly  states  that  it  dare  not  "  se 
publicare  in  ecclesia  in  finem  temporum,"  because  it  neither  belongs  to 
the  concluded  number  of  the   (Old   Testament)   prophets,   nor    inter 
apottolot,  since  it  is  quite  a  modern  book  (couip.  No.  2). 


BEGINNINGS   OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON.   109 

principle  expressly  applied  to  the  epistolary  books  by  Ter- 
tullian,  and  virtually  adhered  to  by  the  Fragment  in  ques- 
tion, is  also  extended  to  the  ecclesiastical  validity  of  the 
apocalyptic  books  ;  while  this  principle  could  no  longer  be 
carried  out  where  the  historical  books  were  concerned.  It 
was  probably  the  Montanistic  movement  which  led  to  the 
exercise  of  caution  in  this  respect.  At  least  we  find  it  ex- 
pressly stated  in  the  conclusion  that  nothing  whatever  is 
accepted  by  the  Gnostics  and  Montanists.6 

4.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  there  was  any  essential  change 
in  the  West  during  the  third  century  with  respect  to  the 
recognition  of  the  N"ew  Testament  writings.  It  is  indeed 
the  prevailing  view  that  the  Roman  Presbyter  Caius  re- 
jected the  Apocalypse  of  John  and  declared  it  to  be  the 
work  of  Cerinthus  ;  but  the  passage  cited  by  Eusebius 
(H.E.,  13,  28)  does  not  by  any  means  say  so.  It  only  says 
that  Cerinthus  oV  aTTOKoAui^ewv  u>s  viro  aTrooroXou 
yeypaju,ju,eva>v  reparoXoyias  fjfuv  a>s  6Y  dyyeXwv  aura) 
invented  lying  stories,  and  then  adduces  carnal  conceptions 
respecting  the  1000  years'  reign,  which  are  entirely  foreign 
to  the  Apocalypse,  and  which  he  expressly  ascribes  to  it  as 
an  cxfyros  inrdpx<av  rats  ypa^ats  T.  Oeov.1  Hippolytus  seems 


•  The  persons  and  writings  here  mentioned  contain  respectively  much 
that  is  obscure.  Harnack  has  most  ingeniously  endeavoured  to  prove 
that  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian  (§  7,  6)  is  also  rejected  here  (comp.  Zeitschr. 
fur  lath.  Theol.  und  Kirche,  1874,  pp.  276,  ff.,  pp.  445,  etc.,  1875,  pp. 
201,  ff.).  Should  this  suspicion  be  verified,  it  would  only  lead  to  the 
conclusion  that  Tatian  had  in  the  meantime  acquired  the  reputation  of 
a  heretic.  But  the  whole  undertaking,  to  assign  official  validity  to  a 
Gospel-harmony  in  place  of  or  along  with  the  four  ecclesiastical  Gospels, 
must  have  appeared  suspicious  to  the  West,  accustomed  to  more  rigid 
ecclesiastical  forms. 

1  The  question  here  is  not  indeed  of  revelations  which  Cerinthus  pre- 
tended to  have  received  as  one  of  the  great  apostles,  as  Baur  and  Volkmar 
maintained,  nor  of  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter,  as  Credner  thought,  but 
the  revelations  alleged  to  have  been  written  by  a  great  apostle  are  un- 
doubtedly those  contained  in  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  which  Cerinthua 
misinterpreted  for  the  very  reason  that  the  sacred  Scriptures  (in  their 
true  sense)  were  hateful  to  him.  He  does  not  say  that  ecclesiastical 


110        ORIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

even  to  have  written  a  book  de  Apocalypsi  (Hieron.,  de  Fir. 
HI.,  61),  and  quotes  it  in  his  work  de  Antichristo  as  a  writing 
of  the  Apostle  John,  as  do  Cyprian  (Ep.  63)  and  Lactantius 
(Epit.,  42).  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  declared  to  be 
non-  Pauline  by  Hippolytus,  as  well  as  Iren»us  (Phot.,  Bibl. 
Cod.,  121,  232)  ;  and  Caius  of  Rome  excludes  it  from  the 
number  of  Pauline  epistles,  of  which  he  counts  only  thirteen 
(Euseb.,  H.E.,  6,  10).  Even  the  Novatian  party,  which 
refused  to  receive  the  lapsi  back  again,  made  no  use  of 
the  passages  Heb.  vi.  4,  x.  26,  so  favourable  to  its  views. 
Cyprian,  like  the  Muratorian  Canon,  enumerates  seven 
Churches  to  which  Paul  (adv.  Jud.,  1,  20  ;  de  Exhort.  Mart., 
11),  like  the  Apocalyptist,  wrote  ;  so  likewise  did  Victorin 
at  the  end  of  the  century.  Up  to  this  time  therefore  the 
West  knew  nothing  of  a  Pauline  origin  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  therefore  did  not  include  it  in  its  New 
Testament.  So  too  of  the  epistles  proceeding  from  the 
primitive  apostolic  circle,  Cyprian  cites  only  1  Peter  (Ep.  58) 
and  1  John  (Ep.  28,  69)  ;  yet  at  the  Council  of  Carthage,  in 
his  time,  256,  a  certain  Bishop  Anrelius  appeals  to  2  John 
10  .,  with  the  formula  Johannes  in  Epistola  sua. 

5.  Origen  expressly  states  that  the  0etai  y/>a^>ou  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament  arc  the  true  sources  by  which  Christian 
doctrine  may  be  proved,  inasmuch  as  the  sacred  books  are 
not  o-vyypa/x/xaTa  of  men,  but  were  written  c£  CT-ifotas  TOV  dyiov 
(de  Princ.,  4,  1,  9).1  We  have  here  a  clear  indica- 


authorities,  as  for  example  Caius,  supposed  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
(ap.  Euseb.,  7,  25)  to  be  among  those  who  rejected  the  Apocalypse  as 
a  work  of  Cerinthus,  and  it  is  quite  improbable.  Even  Eusebius  can 
hardly  have  so  understood  him,  or  he  would  certainly  have  mentioned 
this  in  his  disquisitions  on  the  Johannine  Apocalypse  ;  assuredly 
Theodoret  did  not  (Fab.  Hcer.,  2,  3),  since  he  ascribes  these  pretended 
dTo/coXi/f  fa  to  Cerinthus  himself. 

1  Origen  too  is  still  unacquainted  with  the  old  division  of  the  ypa<t>j, 
or  tv5iddi)KM  (in  the  Dialog,  de  recta  fide,  sect.  5,  called  also  evdidffrjToi 
/9('/3,\o(  (ap.  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  6,  25)  into  the  law  and  the  prophets,  the 
apostolic  writings  and  the  Gospels  (Hum.  in  Gen.  xvi.,  in  Jci:  xix.  3). 


BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON.  Ill 

tion  of  the  point  of  view  tinder  which  these  books  afterwards 
received  the  designation  of  the  Canon  ;  but  whether  he  him- 
self already  so  termed  them  is  very  doubtful.  In  his  view 
the  T>}S  'Iiyo-  Xpior.  Kara  rrjv  8ia8o)(r)v  a7ro<rroA<ov  ovpavLov 
fKK\r)<ria<i  (de  Princ.,  4,  9)  is  the  sum  of  apostolic  doctrine, 
just  as  at  the  end  of  the  second  century,  while  the  apostolicea 
traditiones  are  the  ecclesiastica  regula  ;  but  these  are  in  his 
opinion  already  contained  essentially  in  the  libri  ecclesiastic! 
(comp.  de  Princ.,  prsef.  8),  for  which  reason  the  exire  de 
regula  fidei  is  to  him  virtually  synonymous  with  the  hearing 
of  sermons,  qui  sunk  extra,  scripturam  (Ser.  46  in  Matt.)? 
Hence  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  know  accurately  what 
writings  belong  to  the  Scriptura,  and  Origen  is  the  first  who 
(ibid.)  lays  down  a  fixed  principle  in  this  matter,  viz.  that 
the  prima  et  ecclesiastica  traditio  must  decide,  and  there- 
fore that  only  those  scriptures  belong  to  it  in  quibus  omnis 
Ghristianus  consentit  et  credit,  the  fv  Traorais  ex/cA^cnats  TreTrtorev- 
etvai  QCioA  (in  John  i.  4,  comp.  Gels.  3,  45,  de  Princ., 


although  naturally  there  is  here  no  question  of  a  collection  under  the 
name  6  dir&crroXos,  otherwise  the  0.  T.  writings  would  have  to  be  termed 
6  Trpotfn'jTrjs  to  the  exclusion  of  the  VQ/J.OS  (comp.  §  9,  1,  note  3). 

2  Hilgenfeld  indeed  still  maintains  that  Origen  already  used  the 
expression  KWUV  and  KavoviKd  of  the  biblical,  books.  But  since  they  do 
not  appear  in  his  Greek  works  that  have  come  down  to  us,  and  the  use 
of  them  cannot  be  proved  for  quite  a  century  later,  not  even  in  Eusebius, 
it  remains  more  than  probable  that  the  translator  first  put  the  expres- 
sion Canon,  Scriptures  canonic  a,  libri  canonizati  into  his  works.  It  is 
remarkable  indeed  that  the  expression  liber  regularis  also  appears  in 
Matth.,  Ser.  117  ;  and  it  is  not  impossible  that  with  him  KOLVUV  already 
meant  ecclesiastical  tradition,  so  far  as  it  was  normative  to  determine 
what  writings  were  sacred  (comp.  llom.  in  Josh.  ii.  1),  and  KUVOVIKO.  those 
books  which  were  valid  in  the  Church  in  accordance  with  this  rule 
(comp.  §  11,  5).  In  no  case  is  it  conceivable  that  the  use  of  this  expres- 
sion by  him  or  any  other  points  to  a  fixed  normal  number  constituting 
the  Kaivri  SiadrjKr/,  as  Mangold  supposes.  If  we  take  into  account  all  that 
can  be  proved  respecting  the  position  of  Origen  with  regard  to  the  New 
Testament,  we  cannot  doubt  that  at  his  time  there  was  not  yet  any 
question  of  such  limitation,  and  for  this  very  reason  he  cannot  have 
used  the  term  KO.V&V  in  the  later  sense,  in  which  it  denotes  a  concluded 
collection. 


112        ORIGIN  OP  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 


4,  1),  the  ofJLoXoyovfKva  avavTipprjTa.  Hence  arises  the  antithesis 
of  the  KOLi'a  Kal  8cS///AO<ncv/i.cVa  /3iy8A.ta  and  the  airoKpixfra.  (in 
Matth.,  torn.  10,  18,  comp.  Ser.  46  in  Matth.  :  "  secretae  et  non 
vulgatro,  in  quibus  aut  pauci  sunt  credentes  aut  nallus"). 
The  latter  term  does  not  therefore  necessarily  imply  some- 
thing to  be  rejected  or  that  was  heretical,  but  is  only 
employed  by  way  of  antithesis  to  that  official  recognition 
of  the  collective  Church  which  makes  a  writing  universally 
known;  whereas  that  Avhich  does  not  gain  this  recognition 
remains  in  a  narrower  circle  and  is  therefore  hidden.8 
Origen  expressly  counsels  the  rejection  of  everything  apocry- 
phal, on  the  basis  of  1  Thess.  v.  21  ;  but  for  the  sake  of  those 
who  are  not  able  to  distinguish  the  true  from  the  false, 
he  goes  on  to  say,  "nemo  uti  debet  ad  confirm  ationem 
dogmatum  libris,  qui  sunt  extra  canonistas  scripturas  (Ser. 
28  in  Matth.).  It  is  therefore  clear  that  Origen  already 

*  In  Mark  iv.  22  the  i.-r6Kpv<pov  is  already  placed  in  antithesis  to  the 
iKOdv  e/r  (paveplv,  which  according  to  Matt.  z.  26  f.,  takes  place  when 
tbat  which  is  spoken  iu  the  narrowest  circle  is  made  public.  Already  in 
Clem.,  Horn.,  3,  38,  we  find  an  allusion  to  the  xapd  'lovtialois  Jij^iVtai 
/3t'/3\oi  (comp.  Valent.  apud  Clem.,  Strom.  6,  6).  Clement  of  Alexandria 
uses  the  expression  of  a  work  of  the  heretics,  from  which  they  derive 
a  do^ma  (Strom  3,  4,  ^5ify  aurdis  rb  56-yjua  (K  rivot  aT<ncpi'i<j>ov),  without 
necessarily  implying  anything  more  than  that  this  work  was  neither 
known  nor  recognised  in  the  Church.  Even  though  Tertullian  gets 
angry  against  the  apocryphus  pattor  motchorum  (de  Pudic.,  20),  yet  chap. 
10  (inter  Apocrypha  et  faJsa)  shows  that  the  terra  does  not  itself  imply 
a  judgment  respecting  the  contents  of  the  book,  but  only  an  antithesis 
to  the  recepluin.  The  same  thing  holds  good  of  the  *\rj0<n  dTo*/>i/#uw 
Kal  vJOuv  ypa<ftui>  &  tir\a<ra.i>  (scil.  d.  Hdietiker)  in  Iron.  I.  20,  1.  Where 
Origen  is  concerned,  however,  it  must  be  specially  borne  in  mind  that 
to  him  the  difference  was  of  great  importance  for  the  Old  Testament. 
He  says  in  the  praj'at.  in  Cant.,  that  certain  writings  have  become 
dr6<tpif0a,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  Holy  Spirit  abstulit  them  media, 
because  they  contained  something  that  transcended  human  power  of 
comprehension.  According  to  others  there  is  "  multa  in  eis  corrupta  et 
contra  lidem  veram."  The  apostles  and  evangelists  were  able  to  make 
use  of  them  (comp.  also  in  Matt.,  torn.  10,  18)  because  they  knew  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  what  part  of  them  to  receive  and  what  to  reject  ;  but  for  us, 
who  have  not  the  same  fulness  of  the  Spirit,  the  rule  holds  good  :  "  non 
transeuudi  suut  termini,  quoa  bUUutruut  patres  nostri." 


BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON.     113 

perceived  that  it  was  impossible  to  lay  down  a  material 
principle  for  the  determination  of  the  normative  Scrip- 
tures, and  therefore  adheres  to  the  formal  one  of  universal 
recognition.  But  even  that  required  a  double  limitation. 
Much  that  could  not  come  under  this  category  was  of  great 
inherent  value;  and  since  its  recognition  could  not  be  de- 
manded, one  who  was  conscious  of  the  power  to  discriminate 
between  true  and  false,  might  use  it  himself  as  a  means  of 
confirming  the  truth,  leaving  the  question  of  its  recognition 
out  of  consideration.  It  is  of  more  importance  to  note 
that  whatever  Origen  regards  as  apostolic  he  employs  ad 
confirmationem  dogmatum,  without  any  reserve,  even  where 
ecclesiastical  tradition  and  universal  recognition  are  by  no 
means  on  his  side.  This  points  clearly  to  the  fact  that 
originally  the  apostolic  as  such  was  regarded  as  normative. 
But  since  in  reality  the  principle  of  apostolicity  could  not 
be  carried  out  where  the  Gospels  and  Acts  were  concerned, 
the  principle  of  tradition  alone  was  available  for  the  forma- 
tion of  a  Canon,  and  this  had  to  be  broken  through  wherever 
the  apostolic  had  gradually  come  into  use  at  a  later  time. 

6.  Even  in  Origen's  view,  the  four  Gospels  are,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  p.6va  avavripp-rjTa  tv  rfj  viro  rov  ovpavov  €KKXrj<ria.  row 
6eov  (ap.  Euseb.,  H.E.,  6,  25).  "  Quattuor  tantum  evangelia 
sunt  probata,  e  quibus  sub  persona  domini  proferenda  sunt 
dogmata,"  from  which  it  appears  that  the  words  of  the  Lord 
were  the  true  canonical  element  in  the  Gospels.  "  Nihil  aliud 
probamus  nisi  quod  ecclesia  quattuor  tantum  evangelia 
recipienda  "  (Horn.  1  in  Luke).  The  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews 
was  entirely  outside  this  Canon  of  the  Gospels  ;  but  wherever 
Origen  finds  a  word  that  suits  him  he  does  not  hesitate  to 
quote  it  with  the  necessary  reservation  (No.  5),  in  support  of 
his  principle.1  Even  from  a  book  such  as  the  « 


1  Compare  in  Joh.,  torn.  2,  6:  ULV  Si  vpoffitrat  ra;  in  Jerem.,  horn. 
15,  4  :  el  5^  ru  jra/>aS^x€rat  *»  *n  Matt.,  torn.  15,  14  :  "  si  tamen  placuit 
alicui  suscipere  illud  non  ad  auctoritatem,  sed  ad  manifestation*  ui 

I 


114        ORIGIN   OP  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

Kara  TLirpov  evayyeAiov  or  the  j8i)3Xos  *Ia/cofy3ov  (i.e.  the  apocry- 
phal Protevangel  of  James),  he  has  adopted  the  idea  that  the 
so-called  brothers  of  Jesns  were  sons  of  Joseph  by  a  former 
marriage  (comp.  on  John  ii.  12,  Matth.,  torn.  x.  17,  and  with 
it  §  36,  3),  without  by  so  doing  expressing  an  opinion  on  the 
value  of  these  writings  in  other  respects.  With  the  Gospel 
of  Luke  he  associated  the  7r/>a£«s  of  the  same  author  (ap. 
Euseb.,  H.E.,  6,  25).  On  the  other  hand,  speaking  of  the 
xrjpvYfjia.  Herpov  which  Clement  likewise  uses  (§  9,  3,  note  2), 
he  says  that  it  is  not  retained  inter  libros  ecclesiasticoa  j  and 
that  it  was  written  neither  by  Peter  nor  any  other  inspired 
man  (de  Princ.,  preef.  8).8  Origen  has  quoted  all  the  thirteen 

propositro  qusestionis. "  The  saying  of  Christ  quoted  in  de  Oral.  14  from 
the  treatise  contr.  Cel$.,  7,  44,  can  hardly  be  taken  from  the  Gospel  to 
the  Hebrews,  but  is  the  traditional  remodelling  of  Matt.  vi.  33,  with 
which  he  is  familiar  from  Clem.,  Strom.  1,  24  (comp.  §  7,  6,  note  2)  and 
the  saying  about  the  rparefircu  (in  Joh.,  torn.  19,  2)  he  also  gets  from 
Clement  (Strom.  1,  28).  That  he  made  use  of  the  Gospel  according  to 
the  Egyptians,  as  Credner  maintains,  can  by  no  means  be  proved,  since 
in  Horn.  1  on  Luke  he  expressly  names  it  among  heretical  works  such 
as  the  Gospel  juxta  duodecim  Apostolot,  the  Gospel  of  Basilides,  and, 
though  less  decidedly,  the  Gospel  according  to  Thomas  and  according  to 
Matthew.  When  Sabellins  used  it  (Epiph.,  Ear.,  62,  2),  be  belonged  to 
those  who  did  not  know  how  to  separate  the  true  and  the  false  in  what 
was  extra-canonical  (No.  5).  In  torn.  20,  12,  on  John,  he  even  ventures 
to  adopt  a  saying  of  the  Lord  (rapaS^xeff ^ai)'  ^rom  the  Acts  Panli,  just 
as  a  saying  of  Paul's  there  preserved,  recte  dictiu  videtur  to  him,  de 
Princ.,  I.  2,  3,  although  he  immediately  contrasts  with  it  a  saying  of 
John  as  excelling  et  praclariut. 

*  Although  this  writing  is  here  in  the  translation  called  doctrina 
Petri,  it  is  unquestionably  the  same  of  which  he  speaks  in  torn.  13,  17, 
on  John,  and  of  which  he  there  expressly  says  that  it  still  remains  to  be 
investigated  whether  it  is  yr-faior  or  vbOov  or  /u*r6r.  This  of  course 
cannot  refer  to  genuineness  in  respect  of  origin,  since  he  distinctly  denies 
its  apostolic  descent,  and  since  a  /urr<5*  would  here  be  inconceivable,  but 
only  in  respect  of  its  contents,  which,  as  was  the  case  with  so  many 
apocryphal  works  (No.  6),  were  not  to  be  rejected  because  they  unwisely 
professed  to  be  genuine  apostolic  doctrines  (rJ0or).  Hence  it  has  been 
erroneously  concluded  (comp.  L.  Schulze  and  Holtzmann)  that  Origen 
adopts  three  classes  into  which  the  writings  that  have  come  down  to  us 
are  to  be  divided.  Origen  knows  only  two  classes  (No.  5),  but  is  fully 
aware  that  the  writings  not  received  by  the  Church  differ  very  much  in 
value. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON.     115 

Pauline  epistles  by  name,  although  he  never  counts  them  np. 
The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  also  handed  down  to  him 
as  Pauline  by  the  apxaloi.  avSpcs  (Pantaenus  and  Clement), 
nor  were  Churches  wanting  that  used  it  as  Pauline,  though 
only  in  isolated  cases.  He  himself  regarded  it  as  only 
indirectly  Pauline,  inasmuch  as  in  it  a  pupil  put  the  vo^ara 
TOV  aTroo-ToAov  into  words  (ap.  Euseb.,  H.E.,  6,  25).  But  in 
this  indirect  sense  it  was  still  Pauline  for  him ;  and  hence 
he  frequently  cites  it  as  Pauline  without  hesitation,  although 
he  undoubtedly  knew  that  it  was  not  received  in  all  the 
Churches,  and  was  therefore  not  SeS^/xoo-ieu/Ao/ov.  But  so  far 
as  it  was  held  to  be  Pauline,  this  circumstance  did  not,  ac- 
cording to  his  principle,  interfere  with  its  authoritative  use 
(No.  5) ;  when,  however,  the  epistle  was  not  accepted  as 
Pauline,  he  was  obliged  to  renounce  its  recognition.3 

7.  Origen  clearly  carried  out  is  principles  with  regard 
to  the  Epistles  of  Peter.  Peter,  he  says,  ju/av  lmo-To\.r)v 
op.oXoyovfJt.evr]v  KaToAeXcwrev  «TTO>  Be  /cat  Sevrepa.'  d/x,<£tj3aAA€T<u 
ydp  (ap.  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  6,  25).  This  doubt  certainly  does 
not  apply  to  its  genuineness  in  our  sense  of  the  word  but 
to  its  recognition  as  a  Homologumenon,  which  might  justly 
be  disputed.  In  point  of  fact  we  have  neither  heard  any- 
thing of  this  second  epistle,  nor  found  it  anywhere  cited. 
For  the  first  time  his  contemporary  Firmilian  of  Ceesarea 

3  Comp.  Ser.  26  in  Matt. :  "  pone  aliquem  abdicare  epistolam  ad  Hebr. 
quasi  non  Pauli — tamen  si  quis  suscipit  ad  Hebr.  quasi  ep.  Pauli."  It 
is  quite  an  error  to  suppose,  as  Credner  does,  that  Origen,  where  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  concerned,  laid  down  the  completely  sub- 
jective principle  that  the  test  by  which  to  determine  what  belonged  to 
the  New  Testament  was  its  worthiness  of  an  apostle  in  contents  and 
thoughts.  IJy  accepting  an  indirect  Pauline  origin  he  only  wished  to 
reconcile  the  verdict  of  his  teachers  and  his  own  high  opinion  of  the 
epistle  on  the  one  hand,  with  his  critical  conclusion  that  it  could  not 
have  been  written  by  Paul  on  the  other  hand.  But  in  making  this 
indirect  apostolic  origin  suffice  to  establish  its  authority,  he  only  did 
what  the  Church  had  done  long  before  where  the  writings  of  Mark  and 
Luke  were  concerned,  which  had  also  been  written  by  apostolic  disciples, 
their  contents  having  emanated  from  the  apostles. 


116        ORIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

says  in  his  Epist.  ad  Cyprian,  that  Peter  and  Paul  "in 
epistolis  suis  hsereticos  execrati  snnt  et  nt  eos  evitemus 
monuerunt "  (Epp.  Cypr.,  75),  -which  can  only  apply  to  our 
second  epistle.  Bat  Origen  had  no  doubt  as  to  its  Petrine 
origin,  and  therefore  unreservedly  classed  it  as  scriptura 
(in  Num.,  horn.  13,  8;  tn  Exod.,  horn.  12,  4).1  Of  John 
he  says :  KaroXeXoiTre  nal  cTnoroX^v  TTO.VV  oXiywv  ort^wv,  IOTO) 
Se  KCU  Seurepav  KCU  rpiryv  ewel  ov  Wires  <f>a<rlv  ynycrious  tlvai 
ravras  (ap.  Euseb.,  H.  E.t  6,  25).  It  is  strange  that  he 
places  the  second  and  third  so  completely  on  a  par,  although 
in  respect  of  ecclesiastical  usage  they  are  so  distinct ;  and 
to  me  the  ou  TTOLVTCS  seems  to  contain  a  tacit  admission  that 
he  himself  does  not  regard  them  as  apostolic.  He  has  made 
no  use  of  them,  while  he  repeatedly  cites  the  first.  ^Yhere 
Origen  speaks  of  the  Lord's  brethren,  he  says  :  "lovSas  cypa- 
\frcv  €Tr<.<rTo\r]v  o\iyo<rTtxpv  fitv,  TreTrXi/paj/xen^v  8e  rwv  TT)S  ovpaviov 
Xa/nTos  cppufjievoiv  Xoywv  (tn  Matt.,  torn.  10,  17) ;  but,  although 
he  often  cites  the  epistle  (comp.  torn.  13,  27)  also  as 
scriptura  divina  (Comm.  in  Ep.  ad  Bom.,  3,  6),  yet  occasion- 
ally he  withdraws  his  recognition  (tn  Matt.,  torn.  17,  30)  : 
ci  S«  KCU  TTJV  'louSa  TrpoVoiTo  n?  c7ri<rToX7;v),  and  therefore 
certainly  does  not  regard  it  as  apostolic  in  a  strict  sense. 
Although  it  is  striking  that  in  the  passage  respecting  the 
brothers  of  the  Lord,  where  he  speaks  of  James  at  con- 
siderable length,  he  makes  no  mention  of  his  epistle,  which 
we  found  in  the  Syrian  Church-bible,  yet  he  has  frequently 
cited  it  (tn  Juh.,  torn.  19,  6  :  ws  iv  TJJ  ^cpo/ieV^  rou  'laKwftov 
tVtoToXp  dycyvoj/tev).  But  neither  does  he  regard  this  epistle 
as  apostolic  in  a  strict  sense,  since  he  attributes  its  author- 

1  In  his  view  it  was  a  Homologumenon  (No.  5)  because  an  apostolic 
writing,  and  even  though  not  yet  universally  known,  had  undoubtedly  a 
claim  as  such  to  belong  to  the  New  Testament.  Hence  he  constantly 
used  it  without  reservation  (in  Ep.  ad  Horn.,  8,  4  ;  m  Leu'.,  bom.  4),  since 
the  suspicion  that  all  his  citations  of  it  were  first  introduced  by  Rufinus, 
is  quite  bat-doss,  and  on  account  of  their  frequent  interweaving  with 
othus,  utterly  untenable. 


BEGINNINGS  OP  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON.     117 

ship  to  the  brother  of  the  Lord  (Comm.  in  Ep.  ad  Bom.,  4, 8)  ; 
for  which  reason  he  sometimes  abandons  the  use  of  it  also, 
and  refers  to  those  who  TrapaSexpvTai,  Jas.  ii.  20  (in  John, 
20,  10).2  On  the  other  hand  he  certainly  speaks  no  longer 
of  the  Roman  Clement  as  an  apostle,  even  in  the  wider 
sense ;  he  calls  him  a  disciple  of  the  apostles  (de  Princ.,  II. 
3,  6),  identifies  him  with  the  Clement  of  Phil.  iv.  3  (in  Joh. 
torn.  6,  36),  and  regards  him  as  the  author  of  the  irepioSoi 
(in  Gen.  ii.  14).  What  he  quotes  from  him  (comp.  ibid,  on 
Ezekiel  viii.  3)  has  to  do  partly  with  matters  of  fact  alone, 
partly  with  a  philosophical  view  that  has  no  connection  with 
matters  of  doctrine.  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas  he  mentions 
only  as  a  source  employed  by  Celsus  (Gontr.  Cels.,  1,  63), 
and  with  the  formula :  "  eadem  prope  Barnabas  in  epistola 
sua  docet"  (de  Princ.,  III.  2,  4),  which  does  not  put  it  on 
a  level  with  the  inspired  Scriptures.  The  Apocalypse  is  in 
Origen's  view  naturally  a  work  of  the  apostle  John  (in  Joh., 
torn.  1,  14)  ;  of  Peter's  Apocalypse  we  hear  no  more.  On 
the  other  hand  he  looked  upon  the  Shepherd  of  Hennas  not 
only  as  a  very  useful  work,  but  also  "  ut  puto  divinitns 

*  The  <f>epo/j.tr>)  (in  Joh.,  torn.  19,  6)  expresses  no  doubt  as  to  genuine- 
ness, but  would  certainly  not  have  been  used  if  the  epistle  had  belonged 
to  the  Homologumena,  since  it  only  designates  it  as  one  of  those 
found  in  circulation.  In  the  Latin  portion  of  his  works  that  have  been 
banded  down,  James  and  Jude  are  often  enough  termed  apostoli,  but 
this  is  not  confirmed  by  any  passage  in  the  Greek ;  and  though  Origen 
himself  makes  use  of  the  expression,  it  is  without  doubt  only  in  the 
wider  sense  of  his  teacher  Clement  (§  9,  5).  It  is  quite  an  error  to 
suppose  that  he  mistakenly  puts  the  brothers  of  the  Lord  among  the 
twelve  apostles.  Hence  even  the  passage  where  both  are  reckoned 
among  the  apostles  who  with  their  trumpets  overthrew  all  the  bulwarks 
of  philosophy  (in  libr.  Jos.,  horn.  7,  1),  may  be  original;  and  when  in 
a  flight  of  rhetoric  he  counts  James  and  John  with  those  who  have 
digged  the  puteos  Novi  Testamenti  (in  Gen.,  horn.  13,  4),  this  is  certainly 
incorrect  speaking  if  we  take  his  principles  (No.  5)  into  account,  but  not 
on  the  whole  inconceivable  owing  to  his  frequent  use  of  the  epistles  of 
both,  especially  if  the  suspicion  that  Euflnus  altered  both  passages,  which 
has  frequently  been  expressed,  be  not  excluded,  since  the  divina  ap. 
Apost.  Jas.  Epist.  (horn.  13  in  Psalm  xxxvi.)  probably  proceeds  from  him. 


118        ORIGIN   OP  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

inspirata"  (Comm.  in  Ep.  ad  Rom.,  10,  31),  for  which  reason 
he  often  cites  it  as  ypa<f>ri  (Philoc.,  8).  But  in  Matt.  torn. 
14,  21,  he  admits  that  although  certainly  handed  down  in 
the  Church,  it  is  ou  irapa  iracriv  o/xoXoyou/xtny  ttvat  6clat  and  on 
one  occasion  even  speaks  of  it  as  VTTO  TW<DV  Kara^povov/xcvov 
(de  Princ.,  4,  11),  Hence  he  frequently  quotes  it  with  the 
familiar  clause :  "  si  cui  tamen  scriptura  ilia  recipienda 
videtur  (in  Num.,  horn.  8),  si  cui  placet  etiam  illam  legere  " 
(ser.  53  in  Matt.). 

Whenever  we  attempt  to  carry  out  the  principles  (No.  6)  laid  down  by 
Origen,  we  are  led  to  the  conclusion  that  his  standpoint  is  essentially 
based  on  an  illusion.  Because  a  material  principle  can  no  longer  be 
applied  to  the  determination  of  the  writings  belonging  to  the  New 
Testament,  he  adheres  to  usage  alone,  and  makes  this,  as  the  unanimous 
tradition  of  the  Church,  the  regulating  principle.  But  there  was  no 
unanimous  usage  of  the  Church,  nor  could  there  be  such,  for  the  same 
reason  which  led  him  to  give  up  the  idea  of  the  establishment  of  a 
Canon  on  a  fixed  principle.  The  double  limitation  with  which  he 
carried  out  the  principle  of  tradition,  was  in  truth  an  admission  that  it 
was  impossible  to  carry  it  out.  Nevertheless  owing  to  the  powerful 
influence  which  he  exercised  as  a  Church  teacher,  he,  more  than  any 
otlier,  contributed  to  the  actual  formation  of  a  usage  more  or  less  fixed, 
his  presumption  of  such  usage  being  more  and  more  generally  adopted. 
This  was  due  in  great  measure  to  the  way  in  which  he  considered  him- 
self entitled  to  accept  that  which  was  apostolic  even  where  he  was  not 
supported  by  unanimity  of  usage.  Where  he  hesitated  to  accept,  aa  in 
the  case  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  or  of  the  Apocalypse  of 
Hennas,  it  was  taken  as  a  sign  that  these  writings  had  not  usage  on 
their  side ;  where,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  his  non- 
acceptance  was  due  to  the  fact  that  all  did  not  regard  it  as  apostolic,  his 
authority  sufficed  to  establish  its  reputation  as  Pauline.  So  too  his 
authority  covered  2nd  Peter,  2nd  and  3rd  John,  while  it  became 
customary  to  put  even  the  Epistles  of  Jnde  and  James  in  the  New 
Testament,  because  he  manifestly  did  so,  although  in  their  case  he  now 
and  then  accommodated  himself  to  his  principle.  But  so  far  as  his 
authority  reached,  the  n}/wy/ia  lllrpov  and  the  Aota  Pauli,  the  Epistles  of 
Clement  and  Barnabas,  and  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter  forfeited  their  claim 
to  belong  to  the  New  Testament  for  ever,  by  the  position  which  he  took 
up  with  regard  to  them. 


THE  CLOSE  OP  THE  CANON  IN  THE  EAST,          119 


§  11.  THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  CANON  IN  THE  EAST. 

1.  The  influence  of  Origen  is  nowhere  more  powerfully 
shown  than  in  the  fact  that  it  must  have  become  usual  soon 
after  his  time  not  onlj  to  receive  the  Epistles  of  Peter  and 
John,  Jnde  and  James  in  their  entirety,  but  also  to  regard 
them  as  a  closed  collection  as  contrasted  with  that  of  the 
Pauline  epistles.  This  is  proved  beyond  a  doubt  from  the 
way  in  which  Eusebius  already  speaks  of  firra 
KaOoXiKdl  («rtoTo\ai),  and  calls  the  Epistle  of  James  ^ 
TU>V  6vofj.a£ofj.fv<av  KaBoXudav  CTrtoroXaiv  (if.  JE.,  2,  23,  comp. 
6,  14).  In  his  day,  therefore,  the  number,  name,  and  even 
the  order  of  these  seven  epistles  had  already  become  fixed  ; 
the  Epistle  of  James,  which  had  first  been  introduced  to 
wider  circles  by  Origen,  being  put  first,  from  which  it 
follows  that  its  authorship  was  at  that  time  ascribed  to  the 
brother  of  the  Lord  who  stood  at  the  head  of  the  Church  in 
Jerusalem,  and  had  in  this  way  acquired  a  sort  of  primacy 
over  the  apostles  themselves.  Whether  he  and  Jude  were 
already  identified  as  belonging  to  the  Twelve,  or  only 
counted  apostles  in  the  wider  sense,  we  do  not  know.  But 
the  designation  of  these  epistles  as  Catholic  can  mean 
nothing  less  than  that  they  were  from  the  beginning 
addressed  more  or  less  to  the  whole  Church,  in  contrast 
with  the  Pauline  epistles,  which  were  intended  for  separate 
Churches. 

It  is  evident  that  the  addresses  of  James,  Jude,  1  John  and  Peter 
may  be  taken  in  this  sense ;  but  that  of  1  Peter  too  was  of  so  com- 
prehensive a  character  that  it  contrasted  similarly  with  Paul's  epistles 
addressed  to  individual  Churches.  The  ^XCKT^  icvpla.  of  2  John  1  was 
doubtless  formerly  interpreted  of  the  Church,  and  the  sole  exception  of 
3  John  was  of  no  account,  after  it  had  once  become  customary  to  put 
together  the  non-Pauline  epistles  as  such.  It  is  easy  to  understand  why 
they  were  classed  together  under  this  distinctive  appellation,  if  we 
remember  how  a  special  authorization  was  required  in  order  to  give  the 
Pauline  epistles  a  meaning  for  the  whole  Church  (§  10,  2),  such  as  these 


120   ORIOIK  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

epistles  already  possessed  by  virtue  (at  least  apparently)  of  their  address.1 
That  the  expression  «a0o\(x6t  does  indicate  this  more  comprehensive 
design  of  the  epistles  appears  from  Clement,  who  characterizes  the  letter 
of  Acts  xv.  23  as  £IU<TTO\-?)  JtafloXuij  TWV  d*OffT&\wi>  itrdrruii  (Strom.  4, 15) ; 
from  Origen,  who  repeatedly  refers  to  1  Peter  and  1  John,  and  even  to 
the  Epistle  of  Jade  (Comm.  in  Ep.  ad  Rom.,  5, 1)  and  Barnabas  (Contr. 
Celt.,  1,  63)  as  hrurr.  jca0o\co};  as  also  from  Dionysins  of  Alex- 
andria, who  frequently  applies  this  term  to  1  John  (ap.  Euseb.,  7,  25).* 
The  Greek  Church,  moreover,  still  adheres  to  this  meaning  of  the 
expression,  for  (Ecnmenins  of  Tricoa  explains  it  by  tyicuK\ioi ;  only  in 
the  West  has  the  original  meaning  been  lost,  and  the  term  been 
made  to  apply  to  what  is  valid  in  the  Catholic  Church,  so  that  Cassio- 
dorus  unhesitatingly  substitutes  the  expression  Epistola  Canonical. 
That  later  Introductions  still  contend  whether  it  denotes  canonical 
validity,  assured  apostolic  origin,  emanation  from  various  authors  (ol 
XoiTal  KaOoXov  besides  the  Pauline),  or  point  to  the  fact  that  it  was 
designed  for  Jews  and  Gentile  Christians  or  for  the  promotion  of 
orthodox  doctrine,  is  a  manifest  error.  Comp.  Liicke,  Stud.  u.  Krit., 
1836,  3. 

This  growing  usage  seems  to  have  speedily  passed  over 
even  to  the  West,  at  least  the  Latin  Stichometrie,  which  is 

1  It  is  mere  prejudice  that  has  led  de  Wette,  Reuss'and  others  to  ascribe 
to  them  a  certain  similarity  in  a  theological,  literary,  and  historical 
aspect,  since  in  all  these  respects  they  present  as  much  variety  as  is 
conceivable,  taking  into  account  their  common  descent  from  the  primi- 
tive apostolic  circle.  Such  a  view  has  only  resulted  in  the  unreason- 
able mistrust  with  which  they  are  regarded  in  modern  criticism  (comp. 
Holtzmann,  Haruack,  etc.). 

1  When  Apollonius  (Eus.,  5,  18)  says  that  the  Montanist  Themison 
wrote  an  ITTKTT.  KafloXu?},  the  expression  can  hardly  be  explained  in  any 
other  way.  But  the  language  of  Eusebius  himself  would  prove  nothing 
since  he  did  not  invent  the  term  but  found  it  ready  to  his  hand  ;  he  too 
seems  to  apply  the  expression  IrurroXoi  xaloXuroi  to  the  seven  Church- 
letters  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth,  several  of  which  were  indeed  addressed 
to  whole  circles  of  Churches,  because  they  belong  to  the  entire  sphere  of 
his  ecclesiastical  activity,  in  distinction  from  the  last-named  private 
letter  to  the  Chrjsophora  (U.  E.,  4,  23) ;  and  the  passage  3,  8,  where, 
speaking  of  the  pseudonymous  writings  of  Peter  (the  Acta,  the  Gospel, 
the  K-fipvy/J-a  and  the  aTo/cdXv^ti  Utrpov)  he  says  they  are  ovS'  8\ut  it 
Ka0o\iKo~it  vapa.SfSofj.ii'a.,  is  certainly  no  rule  for  the  designation  of  the 
Catholic  epistles,  whether  we  understand  the  expression  as  referring  to 
those  writings  received  by  the  Church  (comp.  the  xafoXuol  r/x££e«  in 
Chrys.,  horn.  10  in  2  Tim.),  or,  as  is  more  probable  from  the  derivation, 
as  referring  to  the  men  belonging  to  it. 


THE   CLOSE  OF  THE   CANON  IN  THE  EAST.        121 

found  at  the  end  of  the  Codex  Claromontanus  of  Paul's 
epistles,  and  is  supposed  to  belong  to  the  third  century, 
already  contains  all  the  seven  epistles  in  question  after  the 
Gospels  and  Pauline  epistles ;  the  Petrine  epistles  moreover 
being  placed  before  that  of  James,  while  only  1  Peter  and 
1  John  are  to  be  found  in  it  until  after  the  middle  of  the 
century.  The  Epistola  Barnabae,  placed  between  them 
and  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  is  unquestionably  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  which  here,  as  in  Tertnllian,  is  only 
known  as  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  but  was  nevertheless 
received  into  the  Scriptures,  contrary  to  the  former  usage 
of  the  "West.  The  author  of  the  list  is  indeed  still  more 
liberal,  since  the  Acta  Apostolorum,  which  come  after  the 
Apocalypse,  are  again  followed  by  the  Pastor,  the  Acta 
Pauli  and  the  Revelatio  Petri.  In  the  East  the  authority 
of  Origen  was  manifestly  decisive  for  the  reception  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  among  those  of  Paul,  since  from  his 
time  onwards  it  was  used  as  Pauline  without  any  reservation 
(comp.  Bleek,  der  Brief  an  die  Hebraer,  Berlin,  1828 ;  1,  §  32 
ff.).  "While  the  way  was  thus  paved  for  uniformity  of 
ecclesiastical  usage  in  all  other  respects,  an  unexpected 
difficulty  arose.  The  Apocalypse  of  John  was  from  the 
beginning  an  undoubted  part  of  the  New  Testament;  and 
that  its  omission  from  the  Syrian  Church-bible  (§  10,  1) 
proves  nothing  to  the  contrary,  is  seen  from  the  fact  of  its 
recognition  by  the  Syrian  bishop  Theophilus  (§  9,  6).  But 
the  Church  had  gradually  lost  the  power  to  understand  its 
meaning;  moreover  in  combating  a  grossly  material  inter- 
pretation, she  inevitably  became  more  and  more  out  of 
sympathy  with  the  Alexandrians.  Hence  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria  now  came  forward  with  a  criticism,  which  by 
a  comparison  of  it  with  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistle,  in  the 
course  of  which  he  incidentally  speaks  of  the  two  smaller 
ones  as  ascribed  to  the  Apostle,  attempted  to  prove  by  in- 
ternal evidence  that  it  could  not  proceed  from  him,  although 


122        ORIGIN   OP  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

its  author,  probably  the  other  John  who  was  buried  in 
Ephesus,  was  nevertheless  ayios  ns  KCU  fleoWevoros  who  had 
seen  these  visions  (ap.  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  7,  25).  But  Origen 
had  asserted  the  same  thing  of  Hermas,  and  yet  his  Apoca- 
lypse was  already  given  up.  Therefore  whoever  assented 
to  the  criticism  of  Dionysius,  which  men  like  Methodius 
of  Tyre  and  Pamphilns  of  Ceesarea  were  certainly  not  yet 
prepared  to  do,  must  proceed  to  exclude  it  also  from  the 
New  Testament. 

2.  If  we  were  to  take  Origen's  principle  in  earnest,  it 
would  be  necessary  to  inquire  accurately  into  the  usage  of 
the  different  Ch  arches,  in  order  to  find  out  what  writings 
were  employed  in  them  (what  was  ev  rats  cK/cX^o-icus  S«8^/xo- 
o-iev/ierov),  and  then  to  examine  the  old  Church-historians  as 
to  what  was  their  usage,  and  what  they  may  have  said  with 
respect  to  the  origin  and  recognition  of  such  writings.  This 
is  what  Eusebius,  according  to  3,  3,  has  done  in  his  Church- 
history  (about  324),  in  order  to  make  the  CKKXT/O-WKTTIK^ 
7rapaSo<ns  into  an  e/c/cXi/o-taoriKos  navtbv  (comp.  6,  25),  by  which 
to  determine  what  writings  belong  to  the  KOIV^  BiaOrJKrj  and 
should  be  evSia^^xa.  By  this  means  it  became  at  once 
apparent  that  between  the  6/toXoyou/xeva  (avw/xoAoyi//*^)  or 
avavTipp-qra  (dya/t^iXcKra),  which  had  the  first  claim  to  be  tepi 
ypdpfMTa,  and  the  writings  absolutely  to  be  rejected  and  ex- 
cluded by  the  Church  (the  Tran-eXws  voda  nal  TT/S  ATrooroXtK^s 
op#o8o£ias  dXXoT/Jia,  those  u>s  arorra  iravrtj  Kol  Svcrvepfj  Trapain)- 
re'ov)  there  was  also  a  middle  class,  which  Eusebius  sometimes 
terms  drrtXeyo'/xeva  and  sometimes  voda.  It  must  be  main- 
tained, at  all  hazards,  that  Eusebius  made  no  fundamental 
distinction  between  the  writings  belonging  to  this  middle 
class,  and  that  with  him  both  appellations  are  entirely 
synonymous,  and  therefore  do  not  point  to  a  difference  of 
view  respecting  the  origin  or  self-asserted  origin,  of  certain 
writings,  or  to  their  genuineness  in  our  sense  of  the  word, 
but  to  an  opposition  against  their  reception  into  the  writings 


THE   CLOSE   OP  THE   CANON  IN  THE  EAST.        123 

of  the  New  Testament,  denying  their  claim  to  equality  with 
these  and  their  full  right  to  belong  to  them.1  This  is 
already  shown  by  the  designation  of  the  third  class  as 
TravreXws  voOa,  whose  true  characteristic,  however,  does  not 
consist  in  their  being  eupeTiKoiv  dvSpwv  dvaTrXao-jaara,  which 
ovofAaTi  T!!>V  aTrooToXuH'  Trjoo^e/aovTai,  but  in  the  fact  that  they 
ouSa/Aws  ev  (ruyypa/i/j«m  roiv  Kara  ras  StaSo^as  eKK\r)<na(TTiKS)v  Tts 
avrjp  cis  /WJ7P7V  dyayeiv  rj&oxrev  (3,  25,  31).  It  is  only  by  way 
of  example  that  Eusebius  thus  characterizes  Gospels  like 
those  of  Peter,  Thomas  and  Matthias,  as  also  the  Acta  of 
Andrew,  John  and  other  apostles. 

3.  In  the  passage  where  Eusebius  promises  to  give  a 
resume  of  his  researches  into  the  New  Testament  writings 
(3,  25)  he  enumerates  as  Homologumena  rty  dyiav  ru>v 
TcrpaKTUV,  ots  CTTCTCU  jj  T&V  7rpa£ewv  Ttov  aTrooroAcov 
iy,  ras  HavXov  €7ttOToA.as,  ats  e^s  rty  fapofjicvTjv  'Iwavvov 


1  Up  to  the  present  time  we  have  no  certainty  in  this  matter  ;  and  yet 
it  is  beyond  doubt  that  Eusebius  (3,  3)  only  distinguishes  between  the 
dva.vrlp'priTa  Kal  rA  /*•}/  irapd.  ircuriv  6fj,o\oyotJiJ.eva.  ffeia  ypdfj./jt.a.Ta  (comp.  3, 
25  :  rds  re  /card  ryv  £KK\'q<ria.a'TiKi)i>  irapdSoffiv  d\r)9eis  Kal  dirXdffrovs  Kal 
&v<>)li.o\oyriii£va.s  ypa.<pb.s  KO.I  rds  AXXws  ira/)d  rai/raj,  oi)/f  frStadtficovs  ntv, 
dXXA  Kal  diviXeyofjifras,  Sfjuas  8£  iraph  irXetVrois  rwv  e/c/cX^ertaffTtKwf  yivuirKo- 
fj.fras  and  3,  31  :  lepuv  ypanfj-druv  Kal  rwv  dvri.\eyo/j.frui>  fji.fr,  5/j.uis  8£  iv 
TrXeiVratj  ^/cXijcriatj  ira/)4  jroXXois  8eSi)/j.o<nevfjt.<-vwi>),  over  against  which  he 
puts  the  third  class.  After  having  enumerated  the  6fw\oyo6/j.eva,  he 
calls  some  atm\fyt>ij.eva.,  yvApifM  8'  oSv  Syuws  rotj  iroXXotj,  and  then  con- 
tinues :  iv  TOIS  v&Oots  Ka.rarera.'xdu  Kal,  in  order  to  close  the  discussion  of 
this  subject  with  the  words  :  raOra  5£  trdfra  rCov  dvriXey  optv  tav  &v  etij.  By 
this  means  all  doubts  as  to  the  identity  of  dvTi\ey6/j.€t>a  and  v69a  is 
excluded,  a  fact  which  will  prove  of  great  value  in  our  discussion  of  the 
separate  books.  Although  the  o/ioXoyoiyt^  (dvu/j.o\ayrjfj.ti>r))  3,  16  might 
appear  to  refer  to  the  recognised  authorship  of  the  first  Epistle  of 
Clement  by  an  apostolic  disciple  (but  comp.  No.  4),  yet  on  the  contrary 
in  3,  38,  it  is  said  of  the  second  :  06  nty  HO'  ofiolus  TQ  vporipg.  /coi  raih-yv 
yrupifj-ov  £irtffTdfj.e6a  8rt  jM)8t  TOI;J  dpxaiovs  aury  Kexpr]tJ.frovs  tffnev.  But 
when  of  the  Shepherd,  who  in  3,  25  is  named  among  the  vJBou,  we  read 
in  3,  3  that  it  diriXAe/cTcu,  and  can  therefore  not  be  counted  with  the 
Homologumena,  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  his  doubting  ita  origin 
from  Hermas.  Comp.  Liicke,  der  NTliche  Kanon  de»  Eusebius  von 
Ccesarea,  Berlin,  1816. 


124        ORIGIN  OP  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

irportpav  KCU  o/iotiu?  rrjv  Htrpov  Kvpvreov  eirioroAiyK.  It  is 
manifestly  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  disputed  question 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  that  he  here  omits  to  give 
the  number  of  the  Pauline  epistles.  *  Still  more  remarkable 
is  his  mode  of  treating  the  Apocalypse,  when  in  this  passage, 
after  counting  up  the  Antilegomena,  he  says,  errt  TOVTOIS 
Ta*CT€Ov,  flyc  <pavfirjt  TT/V  aTroxaAvi/'iv  TOV  *Ia>avvov,  and  again  in 
enumerating  the  vo6a  (diriAeyo/ieva)  :  CTI  re,  is  tyyv,  T; 
*Io>awov  drroKaAw/'is,  et  <f>avciij,  TJV  rives  aO«rov(ri.vt  a>s  €<£i/v,  erepoi 
S«  ey*cpiVovo*i  rots  o/ioAoyov/ieVots.  But  the  question  as  to 
whether  the  Apocalypse  belongs  to  the  Homologumena  is 
not  one  of  opinion  (ei  <f>ar(irj),  but  simply  a  qucestio  facti, 
which  after  all  that  has  been  said,  he  was  obliged  to  answer 
in  the  affirmative.  From  his  own  words  we  know  that 
doubts  of  the  apostolicity  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  there- 
fore of  its  claim  to  belong  to  the  New  Testament,  were 
first  raised  by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  since  he  is  unable 
to  bring  forward  earlier  evidence  against  it.  These  doubts 
liad  not  yet  by  any  means  become  prevalent  (3,  24  :  T^S  Si 
a—  OKaAityccus  «iS  tKO.T(pov  CTI  vvv  irapo.  rots  iroXXois  irtpLfXn(Ta\. 
rj  Sofa),  and  he  expresses  himself  veiy  cautiously  respecting 
their  origin  (3,  39  :  «IKOS  ow  TOV  Sei/repor,  tt  p.vf  TIS  6i\oi  rot> 
vpSrrov  TTJV  ex*  ovo/xaTOS  tf>€pOfJLfVT)V  'Iwawov  avoKaXvtjfiv 


1  De  Wette  is  wrong  in  still  maintaining  that  Origen  wavers  in  his  judg- 
ment with  regard  to  it.  In  3,  3  he  says  :  TOV  Ha£\ov  irp6Sij\oi  teal  travels  al 
&(Karfoffapct  trurro\at.  It  certainly  was  his  opinion  that  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  was  originally  written  in  Hebrew,  and  probably  transited 
by  the  Roman  Clement  (3,  38),  which,  however,  he  mast  have  forgotten 
in  Ptalm.  2,  7,  or  not  have  adopted  ;  yet  in  ppite  of  this,  in  that  very 
passage,  he  says  :  How  old  it  is,  'may  be  seen  from  the  use  made  of  it 
in  the  Epistle  of  Clement,  IvOtv  elK&rut  fSo^fv  ai/rd  rocs  Xourotf  iyKara- 
\exOi)i>a.i  ypd^affi  roD  dTorriXou.  In  any  case  he  counts  it  in  3,  3,  with 
the  Pauline  epistles,  but  adds  that  some  ^0er^/ra<rt  it,  ir/oii  TTJI  'Pw^a/wr 
tKK\T]ffia.s  wt  ltd]  Hau\ov  oiffav  avrty  dvTtXtytffda.i  <f>^ffcarrtt,  an  assertion 
more  appropriate  than  his  limiting  expression  :  tit  Sfvpo  r-aph.  'PufuUuv 
rifflf  oil  fofd^crat  rou  drcwroXot/  rvyxavtw  (6,  20).  Hence  he  also  classes 
it,  quite  as  s  matter  of  course,  along  with  the  Epistles  of  Barnabas, 
Clement  and  Jude,  in  the  Antilegomena  (6,  13). 


THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  CANON  IN  THE  EAST.   125 

Kcvai),  but  they  furnished  him  with  a  pretext  for  setting 
aside  the  question  whether  the  book  should  be  classed  with 
Homologumena  or  not.  Only  his  personal  wish  to  reject  the 
apostolic  origin  and  full  ecclesiastical  validity  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse could  have  influenced  him  to  take  this  course ;  for  he 
failed  to  see  that  it  was  in  direct  opposition  to  the  principle 
of  his  division  of  the  New  Testament  books,  which  ought 
to  follow  cKK\r)o-ia<rTiKi)  ira/oaSoo-ts  or  the  use  of  the  Scriptures 
in  the  Churches  and  the  old  Church-historians.  These 
modern  critical  doubts  and  the  rejection  of  the  Scriptures 
to  which  some  were  thus  led,  had  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  the  question  as  to  whether  it  had  a  right  to  belong  to 
the  Homologumena. 

4.  Among  the  Antilegomena,  Eusebius,  in  the  leading 
passage  (3,  25)  first  enumerates:  f)  Xryo/ievi;  1aKo>/?ov  nal  -fj 
'louSa  TJ  T€  TLerpov  Scurcpa  eTrurroXrj,  Kal  y  ovo/ia^o/Aen;  Sevrepa 
Kal  Tpinj  'Iwavvou,  eire  rov  cuayyeXiorow  rvy)(avov<rai  tire  Kal 
fTfpov  6/M0VV/AOV  €K«V<a.  He  has  therefore  adopted  the  doubts 
of  Origen  where  both  these  are  concerned,  and  gives  a  hint 
of  them  in  the  ovo/ia^o/xcv^,  although  in  Dem.  Evang.,  3,  5,  he 
speaks  quite  impartially  of  several  Johannine  epistles ;  but 
the  question  of  their  belonging  to  the  Antilegomena  is  quite 
independent  of  this,  as  is  shown  by  the  «IT« — eire,  since  in 
no  case  was  so  old  and  unanimous  a  recognition  accorded 
to  these  two  as  to  the  first,  as  N.  T.  Scripture.1  When 

1  Comp.  also  3,  24  :  TWV  'ludvvov  ffvyypa/ifjuirav  irpbs  rip  ffiayye\l<f  Kal  ij 
Tpvrtpa  T&V  iiriaTO\uv  wapd  re  rotj  vvv  KO.I  irapb  rotj  dpxalois  dyeyt^/Xe/crot 
w/j.o\(>yifrai,  &vTi\£yovrcu  8t  al  XotTrai  Sijo.  Eusebius  again  treats  specially 
of  the  Petrine  epistles  in  3,  3,  and  even  calls  them  ri  6vofj.af6jj.eva  Utrpov, 
&v  ftavijv  idav  yvrjfftav  lyvuv  iirurroX^v  Kal  irapa  rots  irdXai  Trptvfivrtpoit 
6fj.o\oyovfihn]y,  so  that  we  might  be  led  to  suppose  that  he  did  not  con- 
sider the  second  as  genuine  in  our  sense  of  the  word.  Yet  we  never  hear 
that  he  entertained  doubts  with  regard  to  its  Petrine  origin  ;  on  the  con- 
trary he  only  says  that  ^  \ryo/j,tvri  afcov  wportpa  av<a/j,o\6yi)Tai:'  rafa"Q  Si 
ical  ol  irdXai  irpttrfivTepoi  <*>$  dvafupiMKry  tv  ro?j  <r<p<2v  afowv  KaraKtxpijvrai 
ffvyypdfj,(j.a<ri,  rriv  Si  <pepofi.tvi>)v  Sevrtpav  oiiK  ivStaff-^KOv  fj.lv  elvat  irapet\^- 
tf>afi€V'  8fn<i>s  Si  jroXXots  xp-^ffifi-ot  Qavelffa  fiera  TUIV  S.\\<av  tffirovSdffOy  ypa<f><Sv. 
Hence  the  exclusion  of  the  second  epistle  from  the  SiaS^mj,  as  limited 


126        ORIGIN   OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

he  speaks  of  the  17  Aryo/icn/  1axb>/3ov  KCU  rj  *Iou8a,  it  is 
plain  the  expression  only  means  that  the  current  designation 
contains  no  indication  as  to  the  James  and  Jnde  from  whom 
the  epistles  proceed.  But  we  see  this  more  clearly  from 
2,  23,  where  he  takes  from  Hegesippus  a  reference  to  the 
brother  of  the  Lord  who  stood  at  the  head  of  the  Church 
in  Jerusalem,  and  then  adds :  ou  rj  irpdrnj  ru>v  6vop.a£op.cv<av 
KadoXixiav  «7rio~roXa>v  eTvai  Xcyerot.2  If  the  statements  of 
Eusebius  with  respect  to  the  first  five  Antilegomena,  which 
had  already  taken  their  position  as  evSia^xa  show  how 
inaccurately  and  inconsistently  he  expresses  himself,  this 
is  the  case  to  a  still  greater  degree  where  the  others  are 
concerned,  which  had  already  disappeared  more  or  less  from 
the  official  usage  of  the  Church.  From  the  fact  of  his 
putting  the  7r/Da£eis  IlavAov,  the  iroijuj^v  and  the  airoKaXinj/is 
Hcrpov  first  among  them,  Credner  suspects,  probably  not 
without  reason,  that  he  has  in  his  mind  a  list  of  New  Tes- 
tament writings  such  as  the  versus  scripturarum  in  the  Cod. 
Clar.,  which  also  enumerates  these  vei-y  three  (No.  I).8 

on  the  ground  of  tradition  by  the  Homologamena,  is  due  solely  to  the 
fact  that  it  was  not  yet  made  use  of  by  the  ancients,  just  as  the  pseu- 
donymous Petrine  writings  (al  firtKe^rj^vai  irpd£eit,  rb  KO.T  airrbo  wvo/to- 
ffpAvov  etfa-yyAto? ,  rb  \cyl>ntvov  avrov  Kr/pvyna,  i)  KaXou/i^ij  dro/cdXu^tj) 
were  afterwards  scrupulously  separated  from  it. 

3  When  he  goes  on  to  say  :  larlov,  clj  voBf verat  fit*  (oi>  roXXol  your  rwr 
va\aiuv  ai/rfjs  tfjLvrjubvtvaav,  «ij  ovSl  rrjs  \tyo/j.tnit  'loijda,  fuat  Kol  ai/rjjr 
O00TJJ  TWV  iirrb.  \tyofiivuv  KO.QO\IKUV),  o'/tws  5'  t<Tfj.ev  Kal  rat/rat  ^ter4  rZv 
\onrdv  iv  r\e/<rrats  StSv/iocmi'/i^aj  iV^Xv/aiaty,  it  is  clear  that  the  roOtverat 
only  refers  to  the  oppofiition  to  its  having  an  equal  right  to  belong  to  the 
SiaOriK-n)  (on  account  of  its  not  having  been  used  by  the  ancients),  which 
made  it  necessary  to  class  both  among  the  Autilegomena  (comp.  also 
6,  14).  But  this  does  not  exclude  the  possible  view  that  these,  along 
with  2nd  Peter  and  2nd  and  3rd  John,  had  by  their  classification  with  the 
seven  lr(0roXal  KaOoXwai  (No.  1)  already  acquired  a  rightful  place  in  the 
SiaOrjK-ri.  This  is  the  sole  reason  why  in  the  leading  passage  (3,  25)  the 
other  Antilegomena  are  attached  to  these  with  the  words  lv  roit  voBoit 
Kararerdx^u  *al,  and  thus  separated  from  them,  without  being  put  by 
him  in  any  other  class,  as  Credner,  Bleek,  Hilgenfeld  and  others  never- 
theless  maintain. 

1  Of  the  Acta  Pauli  likewise  he  only  says  (3,  8) : 


THE   CLOSE   OP   THE   CANON   IN   THE   EAST.        127 

These  are  followed  by  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  (KCU  TT/JOS  TOV- 
TOIS  T\  tf>fpo/ji.cvr)  ~Bo.pva.fta.  ITTKTTOX^),  which  in  6,  14  is  classed 
with  the  Antilegomena,  along  with  the  Epistle  of  Jude  and 
the  other  Catholic  epistles,  and  therefore  certainly  does  not 
belong  to  another  class  (comp.  also  6,  13).  Finally,  as  the 
fifth  book  he  names  TU>V  dwoo-ToXajv  eu  Xcyo/ievai  SiSa^at, 
to  which  we  have  found  no  reference  as  yet,  while  he  makes 
no  mention  whatever  in  this  connection  of  the  Krjpvyna  Herpov, 
in  spite  of  its  use  by  Clement  and  Origen,  manifestly  becanse 
he  puts  it  in  the  category  of  heretical  pseudonymous  writings 
(3,  3).  But  he  seems  to  have  passed  over  the  Epistle  of 
Clement  with  design,  for  though  in  6,  13  he  puts  it  in  the 
list  of  Antilegomena  between  Barnabas  and  Jude,  in  3,  38 
he  expressly  characterises  it  as  dvw/toXoy??^^  -rrapa.  Tracriv, 
and  in  3,  16  as  o/xoXoyov/xen;  (comp.  No.  2,  note  1),  adding 
ravn)v  8e  icat  «/  TrXeiorats  ex/cX^o-tais  CTTI  TOU  KOIVOU  8e8i//xo- 
(Ti€vp.€vr)v  TraXai  re  Kai  Ka$'  Tj^Ja.'s  avrovs  eyvco/xcv.  We  have  seen 
how  he  was  led  to  this  conclusion  (4,  23)  by  a  misunderstood 
passage  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth  (§  7,  7)  ;  but  having  so 
decided,  he  could  only  reckon  the  epistle  among  the  Homo- 
logumena,  although  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  had  already  disap- 


v,  thus  numbering  them  with  the  Antilegomena,  while  on 
the  other  hand,  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hennas,  he  says  :  lartov,  &t  /cal  TOVTO 
wpbs  n^v  riv&v  dirtXAeKTOi,  Si  oOs  owe  &v  fr  6fi,ai\oyov]J.frois  reOeir],  ixf^  Ir^puv 
Se  dvayKaidrarov  ols  fj.6.\iffTa  Set  oroixetticrews  clcraywyiKris  K^Kpirai'  o6ev 
•ijSrj  Kai  iv  tKK\i](rlais  fapev  avrb  Sedrj/j.o(riev^i>ov  (comp.  the  Muratorian 
Canon),  ical  ruv  iraXaior&Tuv  de  avyypa^uv  (comp.  e.gr.  Clement,  Iren., 
Orig.)  KexpTH^vovs  rivfa  atr$  Ka.Tet\T)<pa.  This  is  more  than  he  has  said 
or  could  say  of  any  of  the  first  five  Antilegomena,  which  clearly  shows 
that  it  would  be  impossible  to  put  them  in  one  of  these  different  classes. 
On  the  other  hand  it  is  an  exaggerated  statement  when,  in  face  of  what 
we  know  of  the  Muratorian  Canon  (§  10,  3),  he  asserts  (3,  3)  that  the 
Apocalypse  of  Peter  belongs  to  those  which  oi)5'  oXws  Iv  KaBoXiKois 


ffvyypafaus  rcus  £1-  atiriav  ffwexptfa-aTo  fnaprvplctts,  especially  if  we  consider 
that  he  puts  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  which  in  3,  25  he  names  among  the 
forgeries  of  the  heretics,  in  the  same  category.  In  6,  14,  he  himself 
expressly  includes  this  Apocalypse  in  the  Antilegomena,  on  which  Clement 
commented  in  his  Hypotyposes. 


128       ORIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

peared  from  the  usage  of  the  Church.  For  this  reason  he  is 
here  silent  respecting  it,  as  also  with  regard  to  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  on  similar  grounds.4 

The  importance  of  Eusebius  for  the  history  of  the  formation  of  the 
Canon  is  commonly  very  much  overrated.  We  are  indebted  to  him  for 
an  abundance  of  material  for  this  history,  however  incomplete  in  many 
respects,  and  however  obscure  and  untrustworthy  may  be  his  statements 
founded  upon  it ;  while  nearly  all  that  later  Church-teachers  pretend  to 
know  of  this  history  is  taken  entirely  from  him.  But  it  is  a  manifest 
error  to  suppose  that  his  learned  compilations  and  discussions  had  an 
epoch-making  influence  on  the  formation  of  the  Canon.  On  the  contrary 
he  himself  depends  invariably  on  the  ecclesiastical  usage  of  his  own  time, 
as  is  shown  by  his  wavering  and  to  some  extent  unfair  and  unequal 
judgments  of  individual  Antilegoinena,  while  his  whole  aim  is  to  make 
them  accord  with  the  iKK\i)ffiaffTiicri  vapdSoffts.*  That  the  object  of  the 
Emperor  Constantino  when,  in  the  beginning  of  the  thirtieth  year,  he 
directed  Eusebius  to  have  fifty  copies  of  the  holy  Scriptures  drawn  up 
on  parchment,  for  certain  newly-built  churches  in  Constantinople  (Vita, 

4  When,  in  conclusion,  he  mentions  that  some  have  even  put  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  among  the  voOa  (drriXryi/wa).  his  object 
manifestly  is  to  account  for  the  fact  of  Hegesippus,  Clement  and  Origen 
having  used  it.  At  his  time  it  was  already  with  justice  included  in  the 
category  of  heretical  writings  (No.  2),  evidently  in  consequence  of  the 
use  made  of  it  by  the  Ebionites  (3,  27). 

*  The  facts  established  by  him  furnish  no  grounds  for  separating  the 
five  Catholic  epistles  from  the  other  Antilegomena,  as  he  himself 
virtually  admits ;  from  the  standpoint  of  lKK\7?<no<mKij  Tapd8<xrii,  the 
Shepherd  of  Hennas,  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  the  Apocalypse  of 
Peter,  most  unfairly  judged  by  him,  had  at  least  the  same  right  as 
these ;  nevertheless  the  position  in  the  New  Testament  acquired  by  the 
former  even  before  the  time  of  Eusebius,  remained  unshaken,  while  the 
position  of  the  latter  was  lost  and  remained  so.  Hie  prudent  silence 
respecting  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  that  of  Clement  had  just  as 
little  power  to  shake  the  usage  accorded  to  the  former  from  the  time  of 
Origen,  as  to  give  back  to  the  latter  the  position  it  had  lost  for  so  long. 
The  assignment  of  the  Acta  Pauli,  the  KJpvyiM  TLtrpov  or  even  of  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  to  the  Antilegomena,  however  just 
in  principle,  had  no  influence  on  ecclesiastical  usage  BO  far  as  we  know. 
It  was  not  even  his  position  with  regard  to  the  Apocalypse  that  first 
gave  rise  to  the  lasting  dispute  respecting  it  in  the  East ;  the  fact  that 
where  it  is  concerned  he  breaks  with  his  clear  principles,  only  shows 
what  influence  the  recently  awakened  critical  doubts  which  were  never 
quite  silenced  in  the  East,  had  on  him  as  a  scholar. 


THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  CANON  IN  THE  EAST.    129 

Const.,  IV.  36,  9),  was  to  set  up  a  universally  valid  collection  of  sacred 
writings  as  a  legally  binding  rule,  as  Credner  supposes,  and  that  we  can 
etill  prove  the  extent  and  order  of  this  imperial  Bible  which  became  nor- 
mative for  the  Greek  Church,  as  Volkmar  maintained,  are  pure  fancies. 
It  is  only  certain  that  the  Council  of  Nice  came  to  a  decision  respect- 
ing important  dogmas,  without  a  determination  of  the  sources  on  which 
their  verdict  was  based,  and  that  Constantino's  mandate,  which  applied 
to  those  Divine  writings  whose  restoration  and  use  Eusebius  recognised 
as  necessary  out  of  regard  for  the  Church,  undoubtedly  presupposes  that 
as  yet  there  was  no  official  determination  respecting  the  books  which 
belonged  to  the  sacred  Scriptures.  In  any  case  it  is  natural  to  suppose 
that  these  fifty  copies  of  the  Bible  decked  out  with  imperial  munificence, 
all  of  which  as  a  matter  of  course  had  the  same  extent  and  arrange- 
ment, had  a  greater  influence  in  establishing  a  fixed  usage  than  all  the 
learned  discussions  of  Eusebius ;  but  unfortunately  we  have  no  know- 
ledge of  this  imperial  Bible,  and  cannot  tell  how  far  Eusebius  in  draw- 
ing it  up  followed  his  own  theory,  or  the  usage  that  was  in  many 
respects  at  variance  with  it. 

5.  It  is  certain  that  from  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century 
the  want  of  a  fixed  limitation  of  the  number  of  the  holy 
Scriptures,  was  more  and  more  keenly  felt.  Cyril  of  Jeru- 
salem, in  his  CatecJietics  (4,  20),  lays  stress  on  the  importance 
of  zeal  in  learning  from  the  Church  what  are  the  writings 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  TO.  Trapa  -rracnv  o/xoXoyov/zeva ; 
and  in  reading  /rj/Sev  TO>V  aTroKpvtjxav.  The  Council  of  Lao- 
dicea  in  its  59th  Canon,  about  363,  ordains  that  no  aKavovurra 
/2i/3Xia  should  be  read  in  the  Church,  but  fiova  TO.  KCLVOVIKO.  rijs 
KatvTjs  Kal  iraXatas  Sia^xijs ;  but  since  the  60th  Canon,  whose 
list  of  the  Scriptures  exactly  agrees  with  that  of  Cyril,  is 
open  to  suspicion,  it  remains  doubtful  whether  they  are 
expressly  enumerated.  Athanasius  of  Alexandria  in  his 
Epistola  festalis  (365)  reckons  up  ra  Kavovi£o/x€va  KOI  irapa- 
8o0eWa  Trioreuflei/Ta  re  Qua.  elvai  (3i(3Xia,  for  the  sake  of 
those  who  confound  the  Xeyo/xeva  aTroKpv^a  with  the  ypa.<f>rf 
fleoVvevoTos.  Gregory  of  Nazianzen  and  Amphilochius  of 
Iconium  have  even  put  this  enumeration  into  verse,  the 
former  in  his  33rd  Carmen,  which  concludes  with  the  words 
el  TI  Tovrmv  CKTOS,  OVK  ev  yvya-iois;  while  the  latter  in  his  Iambi 

K 


130        ORIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

ad  Seleucum  ends  with  ouros  (tyevSt'oTaros  Kavwv  uv  tlrj  TUV 
6eoirv€v<rrti>v  ypa<f>S>v.  To  the  fourth  century  belong  also 
finally  the  lists  of  Epiphanius  Bishop  of  Constantia  (the 
ancient  Salamis)  in  Cyprus,  who  loved  to  call  them  eVSidflerot 
in  contradistinction  from  the  diroKpvfot  (de  Pond,  et  Hens., 
10),  and  of  Chrysostom  (if  the  Synopsis  Vet.  et  Nov.  Test., 
found  in  his  works  proceeds  from  him),  and  probably  also 
the  85th  among  the  Canones  Apostolid.  Hence  we  have  here 
in  addition  to  the  expressions  6/toXoyov/xcvo  and  yvyrta  (to 
which  in  Amphilochius  voOov  forms  the  antithesis),  current 
from  the  time  of  Eusebius  the  first  use  of  the  term  Canonical 
as  applied  to  those  writings  that  were  valid  in  the  Church. 
But  this  can  by  no  means  apply  to  such  books  as  have  the 
force  of  law  in  the  Catholic  Church,  as  Credner  supposes, 
nor  yet  to  those  which  form  or  contain  the  doctrinal  norm, 
as  is  generally  assumed,  but  only  to  those  which  are  marked 
off  by  the  norm  predominant  in  the  Church,  (the  KOVWV  (KK\rj- 
o-iaoriKos,  ap.  Euseb.,  6,  25) .'  At  earliest,  quite  at  the  end 
of  the  fourth  century,  Isidore  of  Pelus.  first  says  :  TOV  *avoVa 
T/}S  ttAjjflaas,  ras  tfei'as  <j>*jp-i  ypa<£as  KaTorrreuoxo/xei'  (Epist.,  4, 
114).  Here  therefore  the  holy  Scriptures  themselves  have 
taken  the  place  of  oral  apostolic  tradition  as  the  doctrinal 

1  Baur  in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir  vritt.  Theol.,  1885,  1,  in  accordance  with 
Semler,  maintained  that  KtunLv  was  the  list  of  books  appointed  to  be 
read  in  the  Church,  and  has  been  followed  by  Holtzmann  and  partly  also 
by  Mangold  (but  compare  §  10,  5,  note  2) ;  yet  even  with  Amphilochius 
the  KO.VUV  T.  froTr.  yp.  is  the  rule  previously  laid  down  by  him  for  deter- 
mining which  books  belong  to  the  New  Testament.  The  usage  of  the 
Alexandrian  grammarians,  put  forward  by  Hilgenfeld,  according  to  which 
the  term  Kwdiv  is  applied  to  the  whole  body  of  standard  classical  authors 
is  here  not  to  the  point,  since  the  writings  themselves  are  not  yet  called 
by  the  name  of  Kavuv.  Compare  the  later  ffvroij/it  rijt  fftlat  ypa<f>ijt, 
known  under  the  name  of  Atbanosius  and  still  representative  of  his  views, 
where  mention  is  repeatedly  made  of  the  upifffUrd  rt  xal  KeKarorur/^ca 
/3</9A/a  (comp.  also  Isid.  Pelus.,  Ep.  1,  369,  irStdOera  xal  Ktnavovian.  /9</9A.), 
So  too  in  Chrysostom,  horn.  58  on  Gen.,  the  xarwy  6ciat  ypaQijt,  which 
is  contrasted  with  the  wVelot  \oyurnd,  is  not  the  Canon  of  the  Scriptures, 
but  the  doctrinal  norm  taken  from  Scripture. 


THE   CLOSE   OF  THE   CANON   IN   THE   EAST.         131 

norm,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  expression  Canon  is  now  used 
by  us.  On  the  other  hand,  the  expression  apocryphal  (§  10, 
5,  note  3),  formerly  so  much  more  comprehensive  and  simple, 
is  now  by  Cyril,  Athanasius  and  Epiphanius  employed  in 
the  definite  sense,  rejected  by  the  Church.  So  long  indeed  as 
it  was  still  fresh  in  the  memory  that  much  now  regarded 
as  uncanonical  formerly  held  a  high  place  in  the  estimation 
of  the  Church,  there  was  necessarily  a  middle  class.  Al- 
though Cyril  expressly  prohibits  the  reading  even  in  private 
of  that  which  was  not  read  in  the  Church,  yet  he  speaks 
of  TO.  A.oi7ra.  Trarra,  which  should  be  efa>  Kei<r6ai  ev  8evrepa> 
and  only  says,  if  any  one  be  not  acquainted  with  the  Homo- 
logumena,  ri  TTC/H  TO.  d/A^t/JoAAo/teva  TaAaiTrcopets  yu-ariyv;  but 
Athanasius  expressly  makes  a  distinction  between  the 
a.TTOKpv<f)a  and  the  frepa  /?ij3Xta  ou  Kav<w£o/«ra  p.ev,  TervTrw/ieya 
Be  Trapa  TWV  Trareptov  amyivwerKeo-flai  TOIS  apri  7rpoo"epxo/AeVois 
Kal  /JouXo/AeVois  Ka.Tr)xetcr6a.i  TOV  r»}s  euo"€)8cias  Xoyov.  This  is 
the  last  attempt  in  the  Greek  Church,  so  far  as  we  know, 
to  retain  a  certain  importance  in  the  Church  for  the  books 
which  formerly  struggled  for  such  recognition;  but  of 
these  dvaywoxTKOfjifva  only  the  SiSa^j)  rS>v  aTrooToXtov  and  the 
Shepherd  of  Hermas  come  into  consideration  for  the  New 
Testament. 

6.  The  lists  of  the  second  half  of  the  fourth  century  sub- 
stantially agree  in  putting  the  four  Gospels  and  the  Acts, 
fourteen  Pauline  and  seven  Catholic  epistles  into  the  Canon. 
On  the  other  hand  the  Apocalypse  is  wanting  in  Cyril,  Greg- 
ory of  Nazianzen,  Chrysostom,  in  the  Canon  of  the  Synod 
of  Laodicea  and  the  Apostolic  Canons.  The  Iambi  ad  Seleu- 
cum,  say :  rtves  /nev  lyitpivovo-w,  ol  TrXctovs  Se  ye  voQov  Xtyovartv. 
Possibly  the  extent  to  which  the  Apocalypse  was  rejected, 
is  here  somewhat  overestimated.1  Moreover  in  the  fifth 

1  The  Alexandrian  Church  certainly  retained  it,  after  the  precedent 
set  by  Athanasius,  as  Didymus,  Makarius  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria  show, 
the  two  great  Cappadocians,  Basil  and  Gregory  of  Njesa  use  it,  and 


132        ORIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

century,  when  it  was  commented  upon  by  Andreas  and 
Arethas,  the  opposition  to  it  appears  to  have  become  more 
and  more  silent,  our  oldest  Greek  Codd.  (Sin.,  Alex.,  Ephr. 
Syr.)  contain  it  :  and  though  the  Alexandrian  deacon  Eu- 
thalius  did  not  set  it  apart  with  the  epistles  for  public  read- 
ing in  the  Church,  this  only  proves  that  its  recognition  as  a 
sacred,  canonical  book,  equal  to  those  of  the  Bible,  did  not 
necessarily  include  its  being  publicly  read  in  the  Church, 
as  we  have  already  seen  in  the  Syrian  Church  (§  10,  1). 
Leontius  of  Byzantium  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  and 
John  Damascenus  in  the  eighth,  have  it  in  their  lists  ;  at 
the  (Ecumenical  Council  of  692,  all  remembrance  of  the  con- 
troversy on  this  point  was  so  completely  lost,  that  its  second 
Canon  reckons  up  the  ancient  authorities  for  the  Canon  in 
the  most  naive  way,  even  those  that  contradict  each  other 
on  this  point.  How  certain  the  East  was  that  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  belonged  to  those  of  Paul,  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  from  the  time  of  Athanasius,  it  has  generally  been 
ranked  with  the  Pauline  Church-letters,  so  that  it  came  to 
be  placed  after  2  Thess.  and  before  the  Pastoral  Epistles. 
It  occupies  this  place  not  only  in  the  above-named  Greek 
Codd.,  but  also  in  the  Cod.  Vatic.3  Nor  has  there  been 
since  any  doubt  in  the  great  imperial  Church  as  to  the 
ecclesiastical  recognition  of  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles? 

through  Ephrem  it  seems  to  have  penetrated  even  into  the  Syrian  Church, 
where  the  great  Antiochian  expositors  Theodore  of  Mops,  and  Tbeodoret 
certainly  do  not  use  it.  On  the  other  hand  Epiphanias  not  only  has 
it  in  his  Canon,  bat  even  characterizes  it  (//cm,  77)  as  rapt  rXelorott 


*  The  reason  why  the  Iambi  ad  Seleucum  mention  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  last,  is  that  they  still  remember,  though  possibly  with  dis- 
approval, the  opposition  to  it,  which  can  hardly  be  more  than  a  scholarly 
reminiscence  from  Eusebius.      The  Arians  naturally  rejected  it  on  doc- 
trinal  grounds  :  hence  it  is  also  wanting  in  the  Gothic  Bible. 

*  The  statement  of  the  Iambi  ad  Sel.,  that  some  count  seven,  others 
only  three,  refers  not  to  the  distinction  made  by  Eusebius  between  the 
Homologumena  among  them  and  the  Antilegoinena,  but  to  the  fact  that 


THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  CANON  IN  THE  E4.ST.    133 

Even  with  Cyril  and  Athanasins,  as  well  as  in  the  Vatic., 
Alex.,  and  Eph.  Syr.,  they  are  pnt  before  the  Pauline 
epistles,  while  Gregory,  Amphilochius,  Epiphanius  and  the 
Sinaitic  MS.  still  retain  the  historical  remembrance  that 
they  were  first  ranked  with  the  Pauline  epistles.  The  re- 
spective order  which  they  almost  universally  occupy  is 
the  following ;  the  Epistle  of  James  stands  first,  then  the 
Epistles  of  Peter  and  John,  while  the  Epistle  of  Jude  comes 
last.  The  Acts,  which  in  every  other  case  follow  the  Gospels, 
are  in  Epiphanius  put  with  the  Catholic  epistles,  the  Apo- 
calypse is  invariably  at  the  end. 

How  it  happens  that  in  the  Constit.  Apost.  2,  57,  the  Catholic  Epistles 
are  wanting  besides  the  Apocalypse,  can  no  longer  be  ascertained,  but 
the  fact  has  no  such  importance  for  the  history  of  the  Canon  as  is  attri- 
buted to  it  by  Credner,  since  according  to  all  historical  evidence,  it  was 
never  entirely  wanting.  They,  as  well  as  the  Apocalypse,  are  indeed 
omitted  from  the  Topographia  Christiana  of  Kosmas  Indicopleustes 
(in  the  sixth  century) ;  but  how  little  significance  this  had,  is  shown  by 
a  passage  in  the  seventh  book,  which  controverts  the  views  contained  in 
2  Pet.  iii.  12,  and  on  this  occasion  asserts  6'rt  ras  Ka6o\iicas  -}]  fKK\tj<rla 
&/j.(pipa\\o/j.^a^  £%«•  He  appeals  in  support  of  this  to  Irenseus,  Eusebius, 
Athanasius,  and  Amphilochius ;  of  whom,  however,  we  have  authentic 
information  to  the  contrary.  So,  too,  when  the  Egyptian  monk  Didymus 
(towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century),  who  himself  wrote  a  short 
explanation  of  the  seven  Catholic  epistles,  and  used  the  second  Epistle 
of  Peter  without  scruple,  calls  it  fahata,  qua  licet  publicetur,  non  tamen 
est  in  canone,  which  by  no  means  applies  to  a  forgery  in  our  sense, 
but  is  plainly  a  translation  of  voOeutrai  in  the  Eusebian  sense ;  or  when 
Theodor.  of  Mopsuestia,  Epistolam  Jacobi  et  alias  deinceps  aliorum  catho- 
licas  dbrogat  et  antiquat,  a  reproach  made  against  him  by  his  opponents, 
we  must  regard  such  statements  as  scholarly  reminiscences.  Even  Chry- 
sostom,  in  his  Homily  on  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  mentions  that  some 
assert  TepiTTov  elvat  ri>  KO.1  rwurt]v  irpo<TK€l<r6<u  TT\V  £iriffTO\i)v  etye  birtp 
irpcfyttaros  fuapov  -fj^luffev,  virtp  evt>s  &v5p6s.  These  things  have  no  sig- 
nificance whatever  for  ecclesiastical  usage  as  such. 

7.  Although  in  the  East  the  Canon  thus  appears  from. the 

the  Syrian  Bible  had  only  three  of  them  (§  10,  1),  just  as  the  Synopsis 
in  the  works  of  Chrysostom  enumerates  only  three.  But  even  in  Ephrem's 
time  there  was  a  complete  Syrian  translation  of  the  Bible,  and  the  old 
Syrian  Canon  was  retained  only  by  the  Nestorians. 

r    '        '     'X 


134        ORIGIN   OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

second  half  of  the  fourth  century  as  virtually  closed,  except 
for  the  uncertainty  with  respect  to  the  Apocalypse,  which 
lasted  for  some  time  longer,  yet  there  was  no  actual  official 
determination  regarding  it,  since  even  the  Trullan  Synod 
does  not  enumerate  the  Canonical  books.  This  naturally  does 
not  exclude  the  possibility  of  an  older  usage  being  retained 
in  individual  Churches  or  circles  of  Churches.  Thus  we 
saw  how  the  ancient  Church-bible  continued  to  influence  the 
Syrian  Church  for  a  long  time  (No.  6,  note  3),  and  how  long 
the  use  of  Tatian's  Diatessaron,  in  place  of,  or  together  with 
the  four  Gospels  was  there  retained  (§  7,  6).  Gregory  of 
Nazianzen,  notwithstanding  his  express  enumeration  of  the 
contents  of  the  Canon,  yet  quotes  passages  from  the  KrjpvyfjM 
Uirpov  quite  freely  (Orat.  16,  Epist.  16,  in  Hilgenfeld,  Einl., 
p.  120,  note  2),  while  Sozomen,  in  his  Church  History,  men- 
tions that  in  some  churches  of  Palestine  the  Apocalypse  of 
Peter  was  still  read  on  Good  Friday  (7,  19),  and  Jerome, 
that  the  Shepherd  of  Hennas  was  in  his  day  still  read  in 
some  Greek  churches  (de  Fir.  III.,  10).  In  the  Apostolic 
Canons,  the  two  Epistles  of  Clement  and  the  Siarayal  rCtv 
dirooToAwv  are  ranked  with  the  New  Testament  writings ;  and 
Epiphanius  alludes  to  the  former  as  iv  rais  dytat?  e/cxXi/o-iai? 
avaywoo'Ko'/iei'ai  (Hcer.,  30,  15),  while  Jerome  says  of  the  first 
epistle  at  least  that  it  "in  nonnullis  locis  etiam  publice 
legitur"  (de  Fir.  J7Z.,  15),  as  he  states  of  the  Epistle  of 
Polycarp  (ibid.,  17:  "qua  usque  hodie  in  Asire  conventu 
legitur  ").1  The  fact  that  the  Clementine  epistles  and  those 

1  Whether  actual  reading  at  public  service  is  here  mennt,  and  whether 
the  statements  respecting  this  or  the  Epistles  of  Clement  may  not  be 
traced  entirely  to  the  erroneous  account  of  EuRebius  (//.  £.,  4,  23,  comp. 
§  7,  5)  is  at  least  very  doubtful.  The  list  appended  to  the  writing  of 
the  Antiochian  Patriarch  Ana.-tasius  Sinaita  (end  of  the  fifth  century), 
from  which  the  Apocalypse  is  omitted,  while  on  the  other  hand  the 
Apocalypse  of  Peter,  the  vtptodoi  /cat  5ida\ai  r&v  diro<rTu\ui>,  the  Epistle 
of  Barnabas,  the  Acts  of  Paul  and  an  Apocalypse  of  Paul,  the  "  SiSatr- 
KaXla."  of  Clement,  Ignatius,  and  Polycarp,  and  finally  the  Gospels  xard 
and  /card  Mardlav,  are  enumerated  as  Ixrdt  or  t£u  ruv  £'  (the 


THE   CLOSE   OF  THE   CANON  IN   THE   WEST.        185 

of  Barnabas  and  Hermas  are  classed  with  the  IsTew  Testa- 
ment, the  former  in  the  Cod.  Alex.,  the  latter  in  the  Cod. 
Sin.,  authorizes  no  conclusion  as  to  their  recognition  in  the 
Church,  since  it  is  by  no  means  clear  that  these  MSS.  were 
designed  for  ecclesiastical  use.  But  it  is  certain  that  no 
ecclesiastical  importance  can  be  attached  to  learned  compo- 
sitions such  as  the  Synopsis  in  the  works  of  Athanasius, 
the  Stichometry  of  Nicephorus,  or  the  classification  of  the 
Scriptures  which  Junilius  (§  1,  2,  note  1)  professes  to  have 
received  from  a  Persian  of  the  name  of  Paul  of  the  school 
of  Nisibis,  since  these  may  all  be  traced  back  more  or  less 
to  Eusebius.9 

§  12.    THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  CANON  IN  THE  WEST. 

1.  The  doubts  regarding  the  Apocalypse,  which  swayed 
the  East  so  long,  never  penetrated  to  the  West.  When 
Philastrius  of  Brescia,  in  the  second  half  of  the  fourth  cen- 

biblical  books)  together  with  a  number  of  Old  Testament  Apocrypha  and 
Pseudepigraphs  in  motley  combination,  seems  to  me  equally  uncertain  in 
origin  and  importance. 

3  The  Stichometry  added  by  Nicephorus  the  Patriarch  of  Constantin- 
ople, at  the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century,  to  his  Chronography,  is  at 
all  events  considerably  older.  Like  Eusebius,  it  divides  the  Scriptures 
that  have  been  handed  down  into  three  classes  :  iKK\i)ffia.£6peva  /coi  /ce/ca- 
i> ovtfffj.fr a,  &im\ey6fj,eva,  and  &ir6i<pv<f>a.  The  Apocalypse  of  John  and 
Peter,  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews, 
here  belong  to  the  second  class.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Epistles  of 
Clement,  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  and  Hermas,  are  put  in  the  third  class, 
along  with  the  Gospel  of  Thomas,  with  entirely  apocryphal  ireploSoi  of 
Peter,  John,  and  Thomas,  and  with  the  Didache,  which  enumerates  the 
pseudo-Athanasian  Synopsis  with  the  Clementines  among  the  foriXfyo- 
Hfva  or  &vayu>u<rK6/j.eva.  Here  we  still  see  indeed  the  influence  of  the 
Ensebian  classification,  but  all  understanding  of  its  meaning,  as  well  as 
that  of  the  writings  treated  of  in  the  last  two  classes,  has  disappeared. 
The  list  in  Junilius  on  the  contrary,  instead  of  adopting  the  Eusebian 
terminology,  calls  the  three  classes  perfects,  mediae,  and  nullius  auctori- 
tatis,  but  puts  the  Apocalypse,  "  de  qua  apud  orientales  admodum 
dubitatur,"  and  the  five  Catholic  epistles  from  the  Eusebian  Antilego- 
mena,  into  the  second. 


136        ORIGIN   OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON, 

tury,  speaks  of  "'hseretici  qui  evangelium  secundum  Johau- 
nem  et  apocalypsin  ipsius  non  accipinnt"  (de  fleer.,  60),  it 
is  plain  that  he  refers  to  the  Alogi  of  Epiphanius ;  he  evi- 
dently has  no  knowledge  of  the  existence,  even  in  ecclesi- 
astical circles,  of  such  as  do  not  recognise  the  Apocalypse. 
Hence  the  five  epistles  which  in  the  second  half  of  the  third 
century  were  ranked  with  1  Peter  and  1  John,  made  their 
way  over  to  the  West  with  greater  ease,  as  we  have  al- 
ready seen  from  the  Stichometry  of  the  Cod.  Clarom.  (§  11, 
1)  ;  no  Church  could  fail  to  be  pleased  by  an  addition  to  the 
costly  treasure  of  apostolic  writings.1  We  now  find  the  col- 
lection of  the  septem  alice  epistolce,  besides  those  of  Paul, 
current  in  the  Church.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  not 
so  readily  admitted  into  the  Pauline  series,  since  the  West 
preserved  the  fixed  tradition  that  it  was  not  Pauline,  until 
after  the  third  century ;  and  in  accordance  with  its  stricter 
usage,  excluded  it  from  the  New  Testament.  But  in  the 
fourth  century,  owing  to  the  study  of  Origen  and  fre- 
quent contact  with  the  Eastern  Church,  it  was  gradually 
adopted  even  by  the  West.  Hilarius  of  Pictavium,  Victorin, 
Lucifer  of  Calaris,  and  Ambrosius  of  Milan,  use  it  as  Pauline. 
But  Philastrius  nevertheless  shows  that  "  alii  quoque  sunt, 
qui  epistolam  Pauli  ad  Hebrews  non  adserunt  esse  ipsius, 
sed  dicunt  aut  Barnabas  esse  apostoli,  aut  dementis  de  urbe 
Roma  episcopi,  alii  autem  Lucre  evangelist®"  (chap.  89). 
The  Hypotheses  of  the  Alexandrians  stand  there  beside  the 
old  African  tradition  (§  9,  4)  without  in  any  way  disturbing 
him  in  his  faith  in  the  Epistola  Pauli.9  The  West  had  no- 

1  When  Philastrius  says  that  these  "  septem  Actibns  apostolomm  con- 
junct® sunt"  (ohap.  88),  he  obviously  knows  that  although  he  only  puts 
them  after  the  Pauline  epistles,  yet  they  are  in  general  joined  directly 
with  the  Acts,  or  else  these  are  on  their  account  put  after  the  Pauline 
epistles  (§  11,  6).  Moreover,  it  is  plain  that  with  bun  the  Epistles  of 
Peter  come  first  on  account  of  the  cathedra  Petri,  aa  already  in  the 
above-named  Stichometry,  and  the  Epistle  of  James  at  the  end. 

1  It  has  been  erroneously  supposed  that  Philastrius  himself  was  still 


THE  CLOSE   OF  THE   CANON  IN  THE  WEST.         137 

thing  to  give  up  in  order  to  make  its  Canon  accord  with  that 
of  the  East,  since  it  had  never  had  any  desire  to  go  beyond 
the  number  of  the  apostolic  writings.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
therefore,  the  Canon  of  Athanasius  here  prevailed,  and  with 
it  the  idea  that  the  statutum  of  the  apostles  and  their 
successors  had  already  decided  that  only  these  Scriptures 
canonicce  should  be  read  in  the  Church.  Contrasted  with 
these,  we  have  in  chap.  88  the  Scripturce  absconditce,  i.e. 
Apocrypha,  a  term  which  here  implies  no  condemnation  of 
them,  but  only  points  out  that  they  were  excluded  from  the 
Canon ;  for  it  is  expressly  said  of  them :  "  etsi  legi  debent 
morum  causa  a  perfectis,  non  ab  omnibus  legi  debent." 

2.  The  reconciliation  of  the  "West  with  the  East,  the  way 
to  which  was  hitherto  being  prepared  of  itself,  was  designedly 
completed  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  by  Rufinus  and 
Jerome,  scholars  who  were  equally  at  home  in  both  sections 
of  the  Church.  The  West  appropriated  the  works  of  Origen 
through  the  translations  of  the  former,  and  the  learned  com- 
pilations of  Eusebius  through  the  diligent  labours  of  the 
latter.  Only  what  was  favourable  to  a  firmer  form  of 
ecclesiastical  usage,  was  taken  from  them.  Rufinus,  in  his 
Expositio  Symb.  Apost.,  repeatedly  gives  expression  to  the 
opinion  that  it  is  the  part  of  the  traditio  majorum,  raised  ex 
patrum  monumentis,  to  determine  the  extent  of  the  inspired 
Scriptures.  He  has  no  longer  a  doubt  that  the  patres  con- 
cluserunt  a  definite  number  of  these  infra  canonem,  ex  quibus 
fidei  nostrce  assertiones  constare  voluerunt.  The  term  Canon 

in  doubt  respecting  it,  or  that  its  ecclesiastical  recognition  was  still 
a  matter  of  dispute,  whereas  he  expressly  adduces  (ibid.)  as  the  reason 
why  it  is  not  in  "ecclesia  legitur  populo,"  or  only  at  intervals,  "  quia 
addiderunt  in  ea  quasdam  non  bene  sentientes."  For  the  same  reason, 
in  chap.  88  also,  where  those  books  which  alone  may  be  read  in  the 
Church  are  enumerated,  only  tredecim  epistolce  Pauli  are  named.  The 
reason  that  the  Apocalypse  is  wanting  here  too,  must  simply  be  that 
this  book  was  not  regarded  as  adapted  for  ecclesiastical  reading,  as  was 
the  case  hi  the  Syrian  Church.  But  it  unquestionably  belongs  to  the 
Scripturce  canonicae. 


138        ORIGIN    OF   TUB   NEW   TESTAMENT   CANON. 

evidently  seems  here  to  be  applied  without  hesitation  to  the 
whole  body  of  normative  Scriptures  (§  11,  5),  the  number  of 
these  having  previously  been  closed.  Jerome  expressly  states 
that  in  the  determination  of  the  Canon  he  follows  "  nequa- 
quam  hujus  temporis  consuetudinem  sed  veterum  scriptorum 
auctoritatem."  From  this  standpoint  he  could  neither 
take  it  amiss  that  the  Greek  Church  of  his  time  in  many 
cases  did  not  accept  the  Apocalypse,  nor  that  the  consuetude 
Latinorum  non  recipit  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  inter  Scrip- 
turas  canonicas,1  though  he  himself  accepted  both.  Thus 
Rufinus  and  Jerome  are  led  to  adopt  the  twenty-seven  New 
Testament  books  of  Athanasius,  which  are  so  arranged  by 
the  latter  that  the  Actus  A  post,  form  the  transition  from 
the  Pauline  Epistles  to  the  Septem  Epistola,  first  among 
which  stands  James,  after  the  Grecian  manner  (Ep.  103  ad 
Paul.).  Both  likewise  follow  Athanasius  in  adopting  besides 
the  lilrri  canonici,  a  second  class  of  writings,  "  qua?  legi  qui- 
dem  in  ecclesiis  voluernnt,  non  tamen  proferri  ad  auctori- 
tatem ex  his  fidei  oonfirmandam "  (Ruf.,  Expos.,  38),  "  ad 
cedificationem  plebis,  non  ad  auctoritatem  dogmatum  confir- 
inandam"  (Hieron.,  prcef.  ad  Salom.')t  only  that  they  are 
termed  "  ecclesiastic!  libri  a  majoribus  appellati"  by  the 

1  He  has  frequently  given  expression  to  this  (Comm.  in  Jet.,  cap.  vi. 
8) ;  and  he  expressly  states,  that  the  same  "  nsque  hodie  apud  Ronmnoa 
quasi  Pauli  apostoli  non  habetur  "  (de  Vir.  III.,  69),  that  omnet  Qraci 
recipiunt  it,  but  nunnulli  Latinorum  (Ep.  125  ad  Evagr.),  while  mnlti 
Latinorum  de  ea  dubitant  (In  Matt.,  cap.  xxyi.).  He  himself  quotes  it 
pretty  often  without  scruple  as  Pauline,  and  again  with  the  words,  ti 
quit  vult  reeipere  earn  epittolam  (Comm.  in  Tit.  L,  in  Ezech.  xxviii.,  in 
Ephet.  ii.),  or  with  gut  ad  Hebraot  scripsit  epittolam  (Comm.  in  Amot-vni., 
in  Jet.  Ivii.),  live  Paului  live  quit  aliut  (in  Jer.  xxxi.,  in  Tit.  ii).  Again, 
he  specifies  the  seven  Churches  to  which  Paul  wrote,  after  the  manner  of 
the  Latins,  and  sums  up  the  different  views  respecting  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  (de  Vir.  III.,  5),  of  which  he  says :  "  octava  enim  ad  Hebr. 
a  plerisque  extra  numerum  ponitur"  (Ep.  103  ad  Paul.).  Finally,  in 
the  chief  passage  quoted  in  the  text  it  is  said :  "  nihil  interest,  cnjus  sit, 
cum  ecclesiastici  viri  sit  et  quotidie  eoclesiarum  lectione  celebretur  " 
(Ep.  129  ad  Dardanum). 


THE  CLOSE  OF  THE   CANON  IN  THE  WEST.        139 

former,  and  "  apocryphi"  by  the  latter,  who  here  only  goes 
back,  however,  to  the  oldest  phraseology,  while  Rufinus  and 
Philastrius  regard  Apocryphal  as  the  absolute  antithesis  to 
Canonical.  The  only  other  work  regarded  by  both  as  belong- 
ing to  the  New  Testament  is  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas.  The 
scholarly  reminiscences  of  former  doubts  respecting  indi- 
vidual New  Testament  writings,  brought  forward  by  Jerome, 
particularly  from  Eusebius,  were  neither  regarded  by  himself 
as  important,  nor  had  they  any  influence  on  the  Church.2 

3.  Final  sanction  was  first  given  to  the  views  of  these  two 
scholars  by  the  all-predominating  ecclesiastical  authority  of 
Augustine.  He  looks  on  the  "  canonica  auctoritas  veteris  et 
novi  testamenti  apostolorum"  as  "per  successiones  episco- 
porum  et  propagationes  ecclesiarum  constitua  et  custodita" 
(Contr.  Faust.  11,  5 ;  33,  6).  In  his  work  de  Doctrina  Chris- 
tiana (2,  8)  he  develops  a  detailed  theory  as  to  how,  in  de- 
termining the  scripturce  canonicce,  the  "auctoritas  ecclesiarum 
catholicarmn  quam  plurium  "  must  be  followed,  "  inter  quas 
illf-e  sint,  quae  apostolicas  sedes  habere  et  epistolas  accipere 
meruerunt."  He  makes  a  distinction  between  such  as  are 
accepted  by  all,  and  such  as  "plures  gravioresque  accipiunt" 
or  "pauciores  minorisque  auctoritatis  ecclesiee."  He  even 
mentions  the  improbable  case  where  one  class  might  have 
the  plures,  the  other  the  graviores,  in  its  favour,  and  thus 
both  be  equal  in  authority.  But  this  is  simply  an  academical 
discussion  respecting  the  various  degrees  of  canonicity,  by 

8  Thus  in  the  Praf.  in  Ep.  ad  Philem.  he  also  speaks  of  those  who 
refuse  to  accept  this  epistle  on  account  of  its  private  character  (comp. 
§  11,  6),  and  mentions  that  the  "  secunda  Petri  a  plerisque  ejus  negatur 
propter  stili  dissonantiam "  (de  Vir.  111.,  1),  that  the  Epistle  of  James 
"  ab  alio  quodam  sub  nomine  ejus  edita  asseritur,  licet  paulatim  teinpore 
procedente  obtinuerit  auctoritatcm  "  (ibid.,  cap.  ii.),  that  the  Epistle  of 
Jade  a  plerisque  rejicitur  on  account  of  the  citation  from  Enoch  (ibid.,  I). 
that  2nd  and  3rd  John  Johannis  presbyteri  asseruntur  (ibid.,  9,  comp.  18; 
a  plerisque).  The  exaggerated  way  in  which  he  retails  these  doubts  con- 
trasts strangely  enough  indeed  with  the  utter  insignificance  they  have  in 
influencing  his  ecclesiastical  recognition  of  the  writings. 


140        ORIGIN  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

which  he  accommodates  himself  to  the  sometimes  wavering 
judgment  of  the  past  and  even  of  the  present,  but  which 
he  does  not  carry  to  any  practical  issue.  For  he  concludes  : 
"  Totus  autem  canon  scriptuarum,  in  quo  istam  considera- 
tionem  versandam  dicimus,  his  libris  continetur,"  and  then 
proceeds  to  enumerate  our  twenty-seven  N.  Test,  books,  the 
four  Gospels,  fourteen  Pauline  epistles,  those  of  Peter  first 
among  the  rest,  and  the  Acts  and  Apocalypse  at  the  end. 
Only  with  respect  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  could  a 
question  actually  arise  in  his  mind,  and  of  it  he  simply 
says :  "  quamquam  nonnullis  incerta  sit  ...  magisque  me 
movet  auctoritas  ecclesiarum  orientalium,  qu»  hanc  quoque 
in  canonicis  habent"  (de  Pecc.  Merit,  et  Rem.,  1,  27) -1  Under 
Augustine's  influence  the  Council  of  Carthage  (397)  re- 
newed the  decrees  of  that  of  Hippo  (393),  in  whose  36th 
Canon  it  is  ordained,  as  thirty  years  before  in  Laodicea : 
"Ut  prseter  scripturas  canonicas  nihil  legatur  sub  nomine 
divinarum  scripturarum,"  only  that  the  reading  of  the  Pas- 
siones  Martyrum  is  reserved  for  their  festivals,  and  the 
twenty-seven  N.  T.  writings  then  enumerated.  But  that 
the  reception  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  still  gave  rise 
to  some  disputes  is  shown  by  the  way  in  which  it  is  ranked 
with  the  Pauli  apostoli  epistolce  tredecim  as  ejusdem  ad  He- 
brceos  una.  It  was  first  by  a  later  council  at  Carthage  (419) 
that  these  decrees  were  repeated,  under  his  influence  also,  only 
that  the  Pauline  epistles  are  now  simply  counted  as  fourteen. 
In  enumerating  these,  merely  to  class  it  with  the  Church- 
epistles,  as  was  mostly  done  by  the  Greeks,  did  not  become 

1  This  is  the  more  significant,  since  he,  for  his  part,  cites  it  as  Pauline 
or  apostolic  much  less  frequently  than  Jerome,  but,  on  the  contrary,  in 
general  as  "  Epistola  ad  Hebraeos  or  qua  scribitur  ad  Hebrasos."  He 
also  expressly  says  that  indeed  "  plures  earn  apostoli  Pauli  esse  dicunt, 
quidam  vero  negant"  (de  Cint.  Dei,  6,  22),  or  that  "nonnulli  earn  in 
canonem  scripturarum  recipere  timuerunt"  (Inch.  Expos.  Ep.  ad  Pom., 
11).  But  this  does  not  prevent  his  counting  fourteen  Pauline  epistles 
in  his  canon,  though  he  puts  tbe  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  at  the  end. 


THE   CLOSE   OF   THE   CANON   IN   THE    WEST.         141 

usual  in  the  West,  since  the  only  passage  in  Jerome  where 
this  happens  is  conditioned  by  the  enumeration  of  the  seven 
Churches.  The  position  of  the  seven  other  epistles,  no- 
where else  termed  catholic,  after  those  of  Paul,  was  likewise 
adhered  to ;  but  in  their  order  the  Epistles  of  Peter  come 
first,  while  sometimes  John,  sometimes  James  and  Jude, 
come  last;  except  with  Jerome,  who  follows  the  Greek 
method.  The  Acts  sometimes  retain  their  old  place  after 
the  Gospels,  sometimes  they  form  the  transition  to  the 
Catholic  epistles  as  in  Jerome,  while  occasionally  they  are 
even  put  after  these,  as  in  Augustine.  The  Apocalypse  in- 
variably forms  the  conclusion. 

4.  A  decision  respecting  the  Canon  of  binding  efficacy  for 
the  whole  Church,  was  not  arrived  at,  even  in  the  West. 
The  Carthaginian  Synods  applied  in  vain  to  the  Romish 
chair  for  confirmation  of  their  decrees ;  we  have  no  know- 
ledge of  its  having  been  granted.  Pelagius  and  the  later 
Pelagians,  in  their  confessions  of  faith,  repeatedly  declared  : 
"  Novum  et  vetus  testamentum  recipimus  in  eo  librorum 
numero,  quern  ecclesise  catholicse  tradit  auctoritas."  But 
the  Church  did  not  speak.  Only  on  behalf  of  the  Church 
of  Spain,  in  which,  notwithstanding  the  prohibition  of  the 
Council  of  Toledo  (400),  a  number  of  apocryphal  writings 
were  constantly  circulated,  did  Innocent  I.,  at  the  urgent 
entreaty  of  the  Archbishop  Exsuperius  of  Tolosa,  address  a 
letter  to  him  in  which  he  condemned  the  heretical  works, 
and  laid  down  a  list  of  the  books  qui  recipiuntur  in  canone 
(405).  This  list  entirely  corresponds  to  the  Canon  of  Au- 
gustine, except  that  among  the  Catholic  epistles  those  of  John 
stand  first.  Leo  the  Great,  in  consequence  of  the  complaints 
of  Turribius,  Bishop  of  Asturia,  with  regard  to  the  spread 
of  heretical  works,  was  also  obliged  to  take  stringent  re- 
pressive measures  (447).  Hence  it  was  mainly  the  authority 
of  Jerome  and  Augustine  which  determined  the  ecclesiastical 
usage  of  the  West.  To  this,  Cassiodorus,  in  whom  we 


142        ORIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

the  seven  epistles  under  the  name  of  the  Epistolae  Canonic® 
(§  11,  1),  appeals  in  his  Institutiones  (§  1,  2),  about  the 
middle  of  the  sixth  century ;  he  evidently  knows  nothing  of 
a  decision  on  the  part  of  the  Romish  chair.1  When  the 
Arian  Goths  of  the  West,  who  had  neither  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  in  their  Canon,  nor  probably  the  Apocalypse, 
went  over  to  Catholicism  (589),  the  question  regarding 
the  latter  writing  at  least  was  stirred  up  afresh,  and  the 
fourth  Council  of  Toledo  (632)  found  it  necessary  to  threaten 
with  excommunication  those  who  rejected  it.  Archbishop 
Isidore  of  Seville,  who  was  present  at  this  council,  has  in 
his  works  repeatedly  enumerated  the  N.  Test,  books,  and 
following  the  example  of  Jerome,  has  imparted  various 
information  regarding  the  older  doubts  with  respect  to  some 
of  them.  We  have  also  lists  from  his  friends  and  pupils, 
the  Bishops  Engenius  and  Ildefons  of  Toledo  (f  667),  who 
attached  themselves  mainly  to  Augustine,  a  sign  showing 
how  necessary  in  Spain  it  still  was  to  strengthen  the  religious 
consciousness  as  to  what  writings  belonged  to  the  New 
Testament. 

1  For  this  very  reason  the  decrttum  Grlcuii  de  librii  recipiendit  et  turn 
recipiendis,  said  to  have  been  composed  in  494  at  a  synod  in  Rome,  and 
which  Hilgenfeld  and  Holtzmann  trace  back  even  in  its  basis  to  Dama- 
8us  (3C6-84),  can  hardly  be  genuine.  It  exists  in  various  forms,  which 
are  traced  back  partly  to  Damasus,  partly  to  Grhv-ius,  partly  to  Hor- 
inisdas.  The  various  recensions  differ  very  much  in  their  order;  in  that 
which  is  traced  back  to  Gelasins  himself,  only  thirteen  Epist.  Pauli  are 
adduced,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  entirely  wauling,  and  the  seven 
follow  under  the  name  of  apostolical ;  in  the  Damasus-recension  of  the 
Epistolae  Canonicto,  2nd  and  3rd  John  are  attributed  to  the  Presbyter, 
the  Epistle  of  Jude  to  Judas  Zelotes.  Among  the  books  expressly  pro- 
hibited we  find  along  with  others  the  Shepherd  and  the  Acta  Pauli  et 
TheclaB.  Bat  it  must  be  clear  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  could 
not  have  been  excluded  by  the  Roman  bishop  at  the  end  of  the  fifth 
century,  when  his  predecessors  Damasus  and  Innocent  I.  had  counted 
it  directly  among  the  Pauline  epistles.  In  any  case,  a  Canon  like  that 
of  Gelasius  must  be  much  older,  and  might  rather  be  assigned  to  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century,  at  which  tune  it  is  conceivable  that  the 
smaller  Johannine  epistles  might  he  traced  back  to  the  Presbyter,  as  in 
the  DamasuB-ruccneion. 


THE   CLOSE  OF  THE  CANON  IN  THE  WEST.        143 

5.  The  middle  ages  had  neither  the  power  to  take  up  an 
independent  position  as  opposed  to  tradition,  nor  yet  the 
means  of  testing  it.1  They  did  not  even  prove  themselves 
strong  enough  to  preserve  in  purity  what  had  been  handed 
down.8  In  consequence  of  the  Council  of  Florence,  Eugenius 
IV.,  in  his  bull  of  1441,  once  more  repeated  the  Canon 
of  Augustine,  and  this  was  the  first  time  that  the  Romish 
chair  ventured  to  give  a  decision  of  universal  validity  in  the 
matter  of  the  Canon.  But  after  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  the  newly-awakened  study  of  antiquity  brought  up 
again  the  old  scruples  with  regard  to  individual  N.  T. 
writings.  What  the  Cardinal  Thomas  de  Vio  (Cajetan) 
incidentally  asserts  respecting  the  Epistle  of  James  is,  it 
is  true,  only  a  reminiscence  of  Jerome's;  but  with  regard 
to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  he  went  so  far  as  to  main- 
tain that  if,  according  to  Jerome,  its  author  was  doubtful, 

1  Reminiscences  of  Jerome's  communications  respecting  the  older 
views  and  doubts  with  regard  to  individual  canonical  books,  become  more 
and  more  rare,  as  in  Honorius  of  Autun  and  John  of  Salisbury  in  the 
twelfth  century.  Thomas  Aquinas  has  the  idea  that  these  only  existed 
until  the  Nicene  Council ;  and  Nicolaus  of  Lyra,  who  discusses  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  at  greater  length,  is  content  to  believe 
that  the  Church  at  Nioaaa  accepted  it  as  apostolic.  Where,  as  in  Hugo 
a  S.  Yictore,  a  threefold  division  of  the  writings  handed  down  again 
crops  up,  all  apprehension  of  the  original  meaning  of  such  a  division  is 
wanting,  since  the  Gospels  alone  are  referred  to  the  first  ordo,  and  the 
Decretals  and  the  Scripta  Sanctorum  Patrum  to  the  third. 

3  Philastrius  perhaps  mentions  (comp.  §  31,  4)  an  Epistola  Pauli  ad 
Laodicenses  (de  Heer.,  89),  of  which  also  Jerome  says :  "  Ab  omnibus 
exploditur  "  (de  Vir.  III.,  5).  Gregory  I.,  however,  is  persuaded  that  Paul 
wrote  fifteen  epistles,  though  the  Church  non  amplius  quam  XIV.  tenet 
(Moralium  Lilr.,  35,  25).  But  the  Laodicean  Epistle  is  afterwards  in 
many  cases  received  among  the  Pauline  Epistles,  so  that  the  second 
Nicene  Council  (787)  found  it  necessary  to  prohibit  it,  notwithstanding 
which  in  the  English  Church  of  the  ninth  century  we  frequently  find 
fifteen  Pauline  Epistles  enumerated ;  in  the  Codd.  Augiensis  and  Boer- 
nerianus  of  the  ninth  century,  as  well  as  in  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate 
especially  English  ones,  it  is  received  among  the  Pauline  Epistles.  The 
Shepherd  of  Hernias  also  crops  up  again  in  the  eleventh  and  twelfth 
centuries,  being  frequently  counted  among  the  O.T.  apocrypha  received 
by  the  Church. 


144        OEIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

the  epistle  itself  was  doubtful  :  "  quoniam  nisi  sit  Pauli, 
non  perspicuum  est  canonicam  esse."  Erasmus  went  still 
farther,  for  he  put  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  on  a  par  with 
the  N.T.  apocrypha,  and  stirred  up  again  the  old  doubts 
respecting  the  Epistles  of  James,  2nd  Peter,  2nd  and  3rd 
John,  and  even  the  Apocalypse,  on  which  account  he  in- 
curred a  severe  censure  from  the  Parisian  Sorbonne.  Hence 
it  was  only  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  time  that 
the  Council  of  Trent,  in  its  fourth  sitting,  on  the  8th  April 
1646,  finally  issued  a  decretum  de  Canonicis  Scripturis,  pro- 
tected by  its  anathema,  which  enumerates  the  N.  T.  writ- 
ings in  the  customary  Latin  manner  :  the  four  Gospels  with 
the  Acts  of  Luke,  the  fourteen  Paulines  with  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  at  the  end,  the  seven  epistles,  in  which 
those  of  Peter  and  John  come  first,  while  James  and  Jude 
are  expressly  termed  Apostoli,  and  finally  the  Apocalypse. 
A  proposal  to  distinguish  between  Homologumena  and  Anti- 
legomena  was  decidedly  rejected.  How  a  New  Testament 
science  of  Introduction  on  the  basis  of  this  decree  could  be 
developed  in  the  Catholic  Church  we  have  already  seen 
(§  1,  2,  3).8  The  necessity  of  making  fixed  regulations  re- 
specting the  Canon  was  likewise  felt  in  the  Greek  Church 
of  the  17th  century.  Cyril  Lucar  in  his  Confessio  Chris- 
tiana Fidei,  of  1645,  referred  indeed  to  the  Laodicean  Synods 
for  the  number  of  the  KavoviKa  /3i/3\ta,  but  expressly  named 
TOWS  Tccr<rapa.<i  euayyeXioras,  ras  7rpa£«i5,  ras  onoroAos 
Ilai'Aov,  Kai  ras  Ka$oAtKas,  ats  <ruva.irTOp.fv  KCU  TTJV 


*  A  certain  Antonius  a  Matre  Dei  still  found  it  worth  while,  in  his 
Prteludia  Isagopica  (Mogunt.,  1670)  to  count  up  the  libri  protocanonici 
and  deuterocanonici  separately,  although  with  the  introductory  remark 
that  by  virtue  of  the  decree  of  Trent,  their  fidet  had  become  aqua 
Among  the  former  he  reckons  the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts,  thirteen  Paulines 
1  Peter  and  1  John  ;  among  the  latter  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  James 
and  Jude,  2  Peter,  2nd  and  3rd  John  and  the  Apocalypse,  with  the  addi- 
tion of  some  doubtful  passages  in  the  Text,  such  as  the  close  of  Mark's 
Gospel,  the  paragraph  respecting  the  adulteress,  and  the  words  about 
tho  bloody  sweat  in  Luke  xxii. 


THE   CLOSE   OF  THE   CANON  IN  THE  WEST.        145 

row  lyyaTnf/ievov ;  and  in  the  year  1672  a  conncil  at  Jeru- 
salem, without  enumerating  the  N".T.  books,  expressly  de- 
creed that  those  which  by  the  synods  and  the  oldest  recog- 
nised Church  Fathers  were  reckoned  as  such,  even  if  not 
always  accepted,  or  by  all,  must  be  included  in  the  list. 

6.  It  was  Luther  who  first  ventured  on  an  entirely  free 
criticism  of  the  traditional  Canon.  This,  however,  was  not 
historical  but  only  dogmatic  and  in  accordance  with  its  whole 
aim  directed  to  the  kernel  of  evangelical  doctrine.  In  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  he  took  offence  at  the  rejection  of  a 
second  repentance,  in  the  Epistle  of  James  at  righteous- 
ness by  works,  in  the  Apocalypse  at  the  incomprehensible 
visions,  which  did  not  apply  to  Christ  and  yet  made  such 
lofty  pretensions,  in  the  Epistle  of  Jude  to  the  reference 
to  sayings  and  narratives  not  contained  in  the  Scriptures. 
That  which  he  urges  against  them  on  other  ground  serves 
only  to  support  his  chief  scruples.  In  saying  that  what  does 
not  teach  Christ  is  not  apostolic,  even  though  taught  by 
St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter,  he  distinctly  lays  down  an  entirely 
new  dogmatic  principle  for  the  Canon,  probably  without 
being  conscious  of  its  range,  or  following  out  the  question 
to  its  legitimate  conclusion.1  So  too  Zwingli  at  the  re- 
ligious conference  in  Berne  (1528)  rejected  the  Apocalypse 
as  unbiblical,  and,  like  CEcolampadius,  asserted  the  right  to 
make  a  distinction  among  the  books  of  the  Bible.  On  the 
other  hand,  Calvin  insists  on  the  apostolic  authority  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  although  ascribing  it  only  to  an 

1  He  has  nevertheless  so  far  vindicated  his  dogmatic  criticism  as  to 
separate  those  four  books  from  the  "  true  and  certain  chief  books  "  of  the 
Scriptures  and  put  them  at  the  end  of  his  translation,  under  the  pretext, 
that  they  formerly  enjoyed  a  different  reputation ;  which  holds  good  of 
2  Peter  as  well  as  of  2nd  and  3rd  John,  but  of  the  Apocalypse  only  in  a 
certain  sense.  This  arrangement  has  been  retained  in  our  editions  of 
the  Bible,  in  many  of  which  only  the  first  twenty-three  are  enumerated, 
just  as  in  the  first  edition  of  Luther,  while  the  four  last  are  separated  by 
a  gap.  In  some  editions  printed  in  Low  German  they  are  directly 
designated  as  apocryphal. 

L 


146        ORIGIN   OP  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   CANON. 

apostolic  disciple,  and  holds  that  the  doubts  with  respect  to 
the  second  Petrine  Epistle  do  not  suffice  for  its  rejection. 
A  true  historical  sense  inspired  the  attempt  of  Andreas 
Bodenstein  (Carlstadt),  who,  in  his  Libellu*  de  Canonids 
Scripturis  (1520),  divided  the  N.  T.  writings  into  three 
orders :  summce  dignitatis  (Gospels,  probably  including  the 
Acts),  secundcB  dign.  (thirteen  Paulines,  1  Peter,  1  John), 
tertice  et  infimce  auctoritatis  (the  seven  Antilegomena).  We 
have  only  to  compare  it  with  the  threefold  division  of  Hugo 
a  S.  Victor  (No.  5,  note  1),  of  which  it  reminds  us,  in 
order  to  perceive  the  immense  progress  that  was  made. 
Even  the  Magdeburg  Centnriators  accept  seven  Antilego- 
mena, from  which  they  exclude  Hebrews,  James  and  Judo. 
Martin  Chemnitz,  in  his  Examination  Cone.  Trid.,  expressly 
states  that  the  later  Church  cannot  make  certa  out  of  dubiis, 
unless  she  have  the  assured,  positive  and  unanimous  witness 
of  the  ancient  Church,  and  calls  the  seven  Antilegomena 
apocrypha  in  the  sense  of  Jerome,  because  their  origin  is 
not  certain  and  cannot  be  sufficiently  established,  so  that, 
although  useful  for  reading  and  for  edification,  they  cannot 
be  employed  for  the  establishment  of  doctrine.  This  view 
prevailed  among  the  Lutheran  teachers  of  theology  at  the 
close  of  the  16th  and  beginning  of  the  17th  century.  But 
Johann  Gerard  no  longer  speaks  of  apocryphal  books, 
but  of  libri  canonici  secundi  ordinis;  this,  or  libri  deutero- 
canonici,  being  the  name  also  given  to  them  by  Calovius, 
Quenstedt  and  Baier,  as  such,  "  de  quorum  auctoritate  a  qui- 
busdam  aliquando  fuit  dubitatum."  But  in  proportion  as  it 
became  nsual  to  look  upon  these  donbts  as  formerly  existing 
but  now  settled,  did  all  motive  for  such  distinction  dis- 
appear. It  never  passed  over  to  the  symbolical  books  ; 
though  the  Lutherans  never,  like  the  Reformed  (Gall., 
art.  3 ;  Angl.,  art.  1 ;  Belg.,  art.  4)  expressly  enumerate  the 
canonical  books.  They  felt  that  in  this  respect  they  were 
at  one  with  the  ancient  Church,  and  required  no  definite 


THE   CLOSE   OF  THE   CANON  IN   THE  WEST.      147 

attestation  of  the  fact.  But  the  Form.  Cone,  clothes  the 
conception  of  the  Canon  in  a  clear  and  definite  formula : 
"  Unam  regulam  et  normam,  secundum  quam  omnia  dogmata 
omnesque  doctores  sestimari  et  judicari  oporteat,  nullam 
omnino  aliam  esse  quam  prophetica  et  apostolica  scripta  V. 
et  N.Ti." 

7.  The  proper  criticism  of  the  Canon  began  in  the 
Evangelical  Church  with  Semler  (§  2,  1).  No  doubt  the 
criterion  which  he  set  up  for  the  canonical  as  such,  viz. 
universal  utility,  was  just  as  dogmatic  as  that  of  Luther, 
though  in  quite  a  different  sense.  But  inasmuch  as  the 
object  of  his  researches  was  to  prove  that  the  traditional 
Canon  was  by  no  means  what  it  was  supposed  to  be,  viz. 
a  collection  of  holy,  inspired,  apostolic  wiitings  that  had 
always  been  regarded  as  normative  in  the  Church,  it  was  an 
easy  thing  for  this  criticism  to  destroy  the  traditional  idea 
of  the  Canon.  Even  our  researches  have  abundantly  con- 
firmed the  fact  that  the  collection  of  N".  T.  writings  whict 
in  the  course  of  the  second  half  of  the  4th  century  became 
more  and  more  fixed  as  canonical,  was  by  no  means,  as 
already  at  that  time  believed,  a  collection  of  those  writings 
regarded  as  sacred  by  the  ancient  Church,  and  that  the  re- 
ception of  individual  books  into  this  Canon  was  in  itself  no 
guarantee  of  their  apostolic  origin,  since  very  diverse  motives 
contributed  to  its  origin.  Nor  is  it  of  any  use  to  go  back  to 
the  Eusebian  distinction  between  Homologumena  and  Anti- 
legomena,  for  we  have  seen  how  fluctuating  this  is,  and  how 
even  in  the  sense  of  its  author,  it  is  by  no  means  limited 
to  our  present  N.  T.  Scriptures,  for  which  reason  we  can 
only  be  thankful  that  this  new  human  position  did  not 
restrain  free  inquiry  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  as  for  a  time 
it  threatened  to  do.  Historical  research  should  rather  seek 
with  perfect  freedom  to  settle  the  origin  of  each  individual 
writing  on  the  basis  of  external  and  internal  evidence.  The 
result  of  this  examination  will  then  first  suffice  to  form 


148        ORIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

the  foundation  of  a  judgment  with  respect  to  the  traditional 
Canon.  But  this  judgment  is  equally  dependent  on  the 
doctrinal  construction  of  the  conception  of  the  Canon,  that 
is  to  say,  on  the  question  whether  such  construction  makes 
the  criterion  of  Canon  to  consist  in  that  which  is  genuinely 
apostolic,  or  in  a  wider  sense  memorials  of  apostolic 
times,  attesting  each  individual  writing  before  the  tribunal 
of  the  religious  consciousness  of  the  ancient  Church  or  of 
the  present.  Only  so  much  is  clear,  that  the  criticism 
which  makes  Christianity  as  such  emerge  from  the  strife 
and  gradual  reconciliation  of  incompatible  opposites,  and 
finds  in  our  New  Testament  nothing  but  memorials  of  a 
doctrinal,  historical  process  continuing  till  beyond  the 
middle  of  the  second  century,  does  away  with  the  idea  of  a 
Canon  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word.  Whatever  claim 
this  criticism  may  make  to  be  the  only  historical  one,  there 
is  no  doubt  that  it  too  is  dominated  by  a  doctrinal  view  of 
the  nature  of  primitive  Christianity  and  the  laws  of  its 
development,  which  in  many  cases  it  adapts  to  standards 
drawn  from  a  later  time,  thus  making  an  historical  know- 
ledge of  them  impossible.  Historical  research  respecting 
the  origin  of  individual  writings  must  liberate  itself  from 
their  assumptions,  as  well  as  from  the  traditional  view  of 
the  Canon,  and  in  particular  ascertain  by  a  more  minute 
exegetical  analysis  the  actual  historical  relations  which  these 
writings  presuppose. 


SECOND    PART. 

HISTOBY   OP  THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE    NEW  TESTAMENT 
WRITINGS. 


FIRST  DIVISION. 
THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 


§  13.    THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

[Heinsen,  der  Apostel  Paulus,  Gottingen,  1830.  Schrader,  der  Apostel 
Paulus,  Leipzig,  1830.  Baur,  Paulus,  der  Apostel  Jesu  Christi,  1845 
(2  Aufl.  ed.  Zeller),  Tubingen,  1866.  Hausrath,  der  Apostel  Paulus, 
Heidelberg,  1865  (2  Aufl.  1872).  Renan,  Paulus,  Autorisirte 
deutsche  Ausgabe,  Leipzig,  1869.  Krenkel,  Paulus,  der  Apostel  der 
Heiden,  Leipzig,  1869.  Luthardt,  der  Apostel  Paulus,  Leipzig,  1869. 
Sabatier,  I'Apotre  Paul,  Strasbourg,  1870.] 

1.  TARSUS,  situated  at  the  outlet  of  the  Taurus  pass  which 
leads  down  from  Central  Asia  to  the  shores  of  the  Medi- 
terranean, was  a  populous  town  on  the  river  Cydnus,  which 
drove  a  flourishing  trade,  and  received  from  Augustus  the 
rank  of  a  metropolis  of  Cilicia.  It  possessed  autonomy 
though  of  a  limited  kind,  and  various  privileges.  The 
essentially  Hellenic  character  of  its  citizens  had  created  an 
interest  in  philosophical  pursuits,  and  given  rise  to  impor- 
tant seminaries  which  vied  with  Athens  and  Alexandria. 
The  ancestors  of  the  Apostle,  who  traced  back  their  descent 
to  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  (Rom.  xi.  1),  belonged  to  the 
Jewish  community  settled  in  this  place  from  the  time  of 
the  Seleucidse.  The  Apostle  at  his  legal  circumcision  on 
the  eighth  day  received  the  name  of  Saul,  "  the  prayed  for  " 

149 


150  PAUL'S  YOUTH. 


,  perhaps  as  a  late-born,  long-desired  son.  His 
father,  who,  like  his  ancestors,  possessed  the  rights  of  a 
Roman  citizen  (Acts  xxii.  28),  belonged  to  the  Pharisees 
(Acts  xxiii.  6)  ;  hence  the  son  was  undoubtedly  brought  np 
in  the  strict  principles  of  this  party  (Phil.  iii.  5),  remaining 
true  to  his  mother-  tongne,  which  according  to  Acts  xxi.  40 
he  spoke  with  fluency.1  For  this  reason,  all  contact  with  the 
Hellenic  culture  of  his  native  town  is  out  of  the  question. 
Moreover  it  is  probable  that  he  went  early  to  Jerusalem 
(Acts  xxvi.  4),  where  he  had  a  married  sister  (Acts  xxiii. 
16),  since  it  was  intended  that  he  should  be  educated  there 
as  a  rabbi  ;  but  not  without  first  learning  the  trade  that  was 
to  maintain  him  during  his  course  of  teaching.  The  pro- 
fession of  a  tent-maker  (Acts  xviii.  3,  o-xiyvoiroios),  i.e.  of  a 
manufacturer  of  the  goat's  hair  cloth  that  served  as  a  cover- 
ing for  tents,  points  to  Cilicia,  where  this  was  a  special 
industry.  He  was  never  married  (1  Cor.  vii.  7).  He  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  of  particularly  strong  bodily  con- 
stitution,2 in  keeping  with  which,  we  have  the  fact  that  his 

1  The  statement  of  Jerome  (de  Vir.  III.,  6),  recently  treated  by  Kronkel 
as  historical,  that  Panl  was  born  at  Giscliala  in  Galilee,  and  only 
emigrated  with  his  parents  to  Tarsus  after  the  conquest  of  the  town  by 
the  Romans,  is  an  obvious  error,  since  Gischala  was  first  conquered  by 
the  Romans  in  the  Jewish  war  under  Titus  (Joseph.,  Hell.  Jud.,  iv.  2,  1, 
etc.),  and  according  to  Jerome  on  Philemon  23,  probably  rests  on  a 
false  interpretation  of  Phil.  iii.  5,  where  the  'E/J/xuot  «'£  "Eflpaluv  applies 
only  to  his  true  Jewish  descent  (comp.  also  2  Cor.  xi.  22),  so  that  not 
even  his  mother  was  a  proselyte.  Acts  xxii.  3  (comp.  ix.  11,  xxi.  39)  is 
decisive  against  it.  The  Roman  citizenship  of  the  Apostle  has  been 
questioned  by  Renan,  Hausrath,  etc.,  without  any  ground. 

*  In  Gal.  iv.  13  we  find  him  hampered  by  infirmity;  again  we  hear  of  a 
severe  bodily  affliction  that  tormented  him  (2  Cor.  xii.  7)  ;  and  although 
he  was  able  to  endure  the  fatigues  of  his  wandering  life,  the  exertions  of 
his  trade  which  frequently  compelled  him  to  take  the  night  for  his 
handicraft,  besides  many  severe  hardships  (comp.  2  Cor.  xi.),  yet  he  felt 
keenly  the  weakness  and  feebleness  of  his  body  (2  Cor.  iv.  7,  Ifi),  and  at 
all  events  had  the  consciousness  of  being  an  old  man  at  a  comparatively 
early  age  (Philem.  9).  The  suffering  in  2  Cor.  xii.  7  has  indeed  been 
supposed  to  refer  to  fits  of  epilepsy,  which  have  been  made  the  explana- 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL.  151 

presence  was  characterized  by  a  certain  timidity,  which 
might  easily  be  construed  as  weakness  (1  Cor.  ii.  3 ;  2  Cor. 
x.  10). 

2.  Saul  owed  his  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  as  well  as 
his  method  of  interpretation,  his  dialectic  as  well  as  his 
Pharisaic  orthodoxy,  to  the  Rabbinical  school  at  Jerusalem. 
According  to  Acts  xxii.  3,  Gamaliel,  the  grandson  of  Hillel, 
so  highly  lauded  in  the  Mishna,  was  his  special  teacher.  But 
whatever  may  be  the  case  with  regard  to  the  much- vaunted 
mildness  and  liberality  of  this  scholar,  which  however  does 
not  exactly  appear  in  his  counsel  (Acts  v.  34-39),  in  any 
case  they  had  no  influence  on  his  pupil,  who  by  his  own 
confession  excelled  all  his  contemporaries  in  Pharisaic 
zeal  (Gal.  i.  14).  He  thus  belonged  to  those  to  whom 
the  fulfilment  of  the  law,  as  required  by  the  party,  was  a 
sacred  obligation,  and  he  was  able  to  boast  that,  according 
to  a  Pharisaic  standard,  he  was  in  this  respect  blameless 
(Phil.  iii.  6).  Nevertheless,  all  his  efforts  to  gain  favour 
with  God  by  this  means  did  not  satisfy  him.  In  constant 
strife  with  his  own  opposing  nature,  he  only  became  more 
and  more  deeply  entangled  in  the  unhappy  struggle  between 
the  desire  to  do  better  and  the  impotence  of  the  natural 
man,  which  led  him  utterly  to  despair  of  his  own  salvation 
(Rom.  vii.  11-24).  The  disturbance  at  Jerusalem  due  to 
the  appearance  of  Stephen  must  have  originated  at  the  time 
of  this  mental  struggle,  when  the  Pharisaic  party  and  the 
leaders  of  the  people  became  apprehensive  lest  the  Nazarene 
sect,  hitherto  tolerated  on  account  of  its  fidelity  to  the  law 
and  even  esteemed,  should  as  a  final  result  threaten  the 
sanctuaries  of  Israel  and  the  existence  of  the  theocracy.1 

tion  of  his  visions  and  states  of  ecstasy  (2  Cor.  xii.  1,  etc.) ;  bat  the 
connection  in  which  Paul  speaks  of  this  suffering,  which  is  to  keep  him 
from  self -exaltation  on  account  of  his  exalted  revelations,  absolutely 
excludes  this  interpretation. 

1  Whether  Paul  was  present  in  Jerusalem  during  the  time  of  the 
public  ministry  of  Jesus,  we  do  not  know ;  in  any  case,  it  does  not  fol- 


152  PAUL'S  CONVERSION. 

The  nnappeased  desire  to  win  the  Divine  favour  and  by  this 
means  internal  peace,  by  increased  zeal  for  the  law  of  his 
fathers,  made  him  a  fanatical  persecutor  of  the  Christians 
(Acts  viii.  3 ;  comp.  1  Cor.  xv.  9 ;  Phil.  iii.  6).  But  on  a 
journey  to  Damascus,  which  had  for  its  object  the  perse- 
cution of  the  Christians,  undertaken  with  the  full  authority 
of  the  Sanhedrim,  he  was  convinced  of  the  ungodliness  of 
his  former  conduct  by  a  vision  of  the  exalted  Christ,  was 
converted  to  faith  in  Him,  and  was  baptized  by  Ananias  at 
Damascus  (Acts  ix.  1-19;  comp.  Gal.  i.  13-16).* 

All  attempts  to  show  the  probability  of  a  gradual  psychological  pre- 
paration for  this  sudden  change,  dne  to  the  freer  tendency  of  his  teacher 
Gamaliel,  the  Scriptural  arguments  of  the  Nazarenes,  or  the  impression 


low  from  2  Cor.  v.  16  that  he  saw  Him,  and  he  certainly  received  no 
impression  of  Him  worth  naming.  On  the  other  hand,  he  may  have 
belonged  to  the  members  of  the  Cilician  synagogue,  who  disputed  much 
with  Stephen  (Acts  vi.  9),  and,  according  to  Acts  vii.  58,  viii.  1,  he 
looked  on  with  approval  at  the  stoning  of  Stephen.  The  expression 
reavtat  applied  to  him  at  that  time,  can  only  refer  to  a  young  man  in  the 
bloom  of  his  youth,  since  he  is  represented  by  the  Acts  themselves  as 
immediately  afterwards  vigorously  at  work  (viii.  3),  and  even  as  a  con- 
fidential messenger  of  the  Sanhedrim  (ix.  1 ;  but  comp.  §  50,  3). 

8  When  in  Gal.  i.  16  Paul  says  that  after  his  conversion  he  sought  no 
human  counsel,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  was  not  baptized  by  Anauias. 
On  the  contrary,  when  he  traces  back  the  revelation  he  received  to  the 
KoXtffat  (nf)  Sia  rr)t  xdpn-os  ai/roO,  the  calling,  in  accordance  with  the 
constant  diction  of  the  Apostle,  is  nothing  but  the  calling  to  the  Church 
by  means  of  awakening  faith ;  but  reception  into  the  Church  can  only 
be  accomplished  through  baptism.  Luke  repeatedly  heard  the  Apostle 
describe  the  vision  that  was  imparted  to  him  (Acts  xxii.  26),  and  has 
himself  given  a  representation  of  it  in  accordance  with  this  (ix.  3-8) ; 
but  even  apart  from  these  free  representations  that  are  not  entirely 
reconcilable,  they  prove  nothing  certain  as  to  the  form  in  which  the 
heavenly  glory  of  the  exalted  Christ  made  itself  perceptible  to  his 
senses.  Comp.  Bengel,  die  fiekrhrung  dfi  Apo»tfl  Paulas,  Tubing.,  1827; 
Greve,  die  Bekf.hrung  Pauli,  Giitersloh,  1848 ;  Paret,  in  der  Jahrb.  /. 
dcutsche  Theol.,  1859,  2  ;  Holsten  and  Hilgenfeld,  in  the  Ztittchr.f.  wits. 
Thenl.,  1861,  3  ;  1864,  2  (comp.  Holsten,  turn  Kvattgelium  de$  Petnu  und 
Pauliu,  Rostock,  1868);  Beyschlag,  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1864,  2;  1870,  1,  2; 
Diestelmann,  das  Jugendlcben  det  Saulus,  teine  Bekehrung  u.  apottolitclm 
Berufung,  Hannover,  1866. 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL.  153 

of  the  joyful  death  of  Stephen  and  other  martyrs,  are  destroyed  by  the 
Apostle's  account  in  Gal.  i.,  the  obvious  tendency  of  which  is  to  support 
his  assertion  that  he  did  not  learn  his  gospel  from  man,  but  received  it 
by  revelation  (i.  12),  by  proving  in  the  first  place  that  in  his  fanatical 
zeal  for  the  law  and  persecution  he  was  quite  inaccessible  to  human 
influences  of  this  kind,  when  God  of  His  own  free  pleasure  chose  him 
for  Himself  in  order  to  reveal  His  Son  to  him  (i.  13-16) ;  just  as  in 
Phil.  iii.  12  he  represents  his  conversion  as  a  being  apprehended  by 
Christ.  Such  attempts  moreover  set  out  with  the  assumption  that  for 
a  long  time  Paul  resisted  a  better  conviction  that  was  forcing  itself  upon 
him,  and  drowned  the  voice  of  conscience  by  an  ever-increasing  rage 
of  fanaticism,  whereas  notwithstanding  his  self-accusations  (1  Cor.  xv. 
9 ;  Gal.  i.  13),  he  knows  nothing  of  this,  and,  if  1  Tim.  i.  13  be  genuine, 
states  the  contrary.  In  particular,  the  idea  is  put  forward,  especially 
by  the  Tubingen  school,  that  Paul,  by  reflection  on  the  saving  signifi- 
cance of  the  death  on  the  cross,  gradually  came  to  acknowledge  the 
Messiahship  of  Christ,  just  as  the  Christians  endeavoured  to  prove  the 
same  thing  from  the  fact  that  he  too  acknowledged  the  Scriptures, 
supporting  their  allegation  by  his  admission  of  the  possibility  of  the 
resurrection,  and  maintaining  that  full  conviction  came  to  him  in  a 
vision  that  had  arisen  psychologically.  But  the  question  of  the  Messiah- 
ship  of  Christ  was  not  in  his  view  one  of  theological  doctrine,  but  one 
of  religious  life ;  by  the  recognition  of  which  his  whole  former  life,  and 
the  means  by  which  he  had  most  certainly  hoped  to  win  God's  favour 
were  condemned  as  foolishness  and  sin.  Hence  it  is  impossible  that 
the  unalterable  certainty  which  reversed  all  his  former  preconceptions 
could  have  been  based  on  intellectual  reflection ;  in  the  case  of  others 
he  never  attributed  it  to  this  but  solely  to  Divine  efficacy  (1  Cor.  ii.  4  f.). 
In  any  case,  the  vision  which  established  this  certainty  in  him  must 
be  attributed  to  direct  Divine  agency ;  to  him  it  meant  an  actual  convic- 
tion of  the  Divine  glory,  and  hence  of  the  Messiahship  of  the  Crucified 
One,  whose  resurrection  had  been  announced  by  His  disciples ;  for 
which  reason  all  his  former  preconceptions  were  destroyed.  But  Paul 
does  not  put  the  vision  of  Christ  that  had  been  imparted  to  him,  and  to 
which  he  appeals  as  the  ground  of  his  apostleship,  on  a  level  with  the 
visions  and  revelations  of  which  he  unwillingly  boasts  (2  Cor.  xii.) ;  he 
looks  on  it  as  the  last  in  the  series  of  appearances  vouchsafed  by  the 
Eisen  One  to  His  former  disciples  (1  Cor.  xv.  8),  while  visions  were  of 
constant  recurrence  in  the  Church  as  long  as  the  gracious  gifts  of  the 
primitive  time  retained  their  efficacy.  The  fact  that  Gal.  i.  16  speaks  of 
a  revelation  of  the  Son  of  God  in  him,  proves  so  little  against  a  sensuous 
appearance,  that  without  it,  on  the  contrary,  this  could  never  have  been 
recognised  for  what  it  was  in  its  full  meaning,  nor  assured  against  all 
suspicion  of  having  been  an  illusion  of  the  senses. 


154  PAUL  IN   ARABIA  AND  DAMASCUS. 

So  powerful  was  the  inner  change  which  Saul  passed 
through  that  he  retired  for  nearly  three  years  to  Arabia,  i.e. 
probably  to  the  northern  part  of  it,  to  Hauran  (Auranitis) 
bordering  on  Syria,  in  order  in  the  loneliness  of  the  desert, 
in  contemplation  and  prayer,  to  learn  the  meaning  of  what 
he  had  experienced.  That  he  exercised  a  missionary  activity 
there,  is  neither  indicated  by  the  context  of  Gal.  i.  17, 
•which  only  excludes  all  thought  of  his  having  discussed  his 
experiences  with  men  or  received  from  them  any  explanation 
of  saving  truth,  nor  do  we  elsewhere  find  any  trace  of  it  (not 
even  in  Bom.  xv.  19).  It  is  certain  that  he  afterwards 
associated  his  wonderful  conversion  with  the  Divine  intention 
to  make  him  an  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  (Gal.  i.  15  f.),  and 
therefore  when  referring  to  the  grace  that  had  been  specially 
bestowed  on  him,  had  always  both  in  his  mind ;  but  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  this  was  clear  to  him  from  the  begin- 
ning.8 It  was,  moreover,  easy  to  understand  that  being  of 
so  energetic  a  nature,  he  felt  constrained  to  work  as  actively 
in  promoting  the  new  faith  as  formerly  in  opposing  it.  But 
for  this  very  reason  it  was  incumbent  on  him  to  carry  out 
the  entire  change  of  his  religious  views  in  solitude  and 
intercourse  with  his  God,  whose  ulterior  revelations  he 
there  sought  and  found,  a  change  which  was  the  necessary 
consequence  of  his  conversion  to  Christ,  though  it  must  not 
be  assumed  that  he  had  already  evolved  his  whole  doctrinal 
system  in  this  place. 

3.  It  is  altogether  credible  that  Saul  when  he  returned 
from  the  Arabian  desert  to  Damascus  (Gal.  i.  17),  and  was 
driven  thence  by  snares  on  the  part  of  the  Ethnarch  of  King 
Aretas,  who  governed  there  (2  Cor.  xi.  32  f.),  had  brought 

*  Even  the  Acts  make  the  Apostle  speak  later  as  if  a  revelation  re- 
specting his  destination  as  an  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  had  been  already 
imparted  to  him  at  the  time  of  his  conversion  (xxvi.  16) ;  bat  in  zzii.  21 
they  transfer  it  to  Jerusalem  ;  and  in  ix.  16  represent  it  as  having  been 
imparted  only  to  Ananias. 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL.  155 

this  upon  himself  by  the  announcement  of  Jesus'  Messiahship 
among  the  Jews  of  that  place  (Acts  ix.  20-25).  It  would 
remain  completely  inconceivable  how  the  Ethnarch  should 
have  advanced  to  this  hostility  against  him,  if  he  had  not 
been  denounced  to  him  as  a  disturber  of  the  peace  by  the 
Jews  who  wished  to  set  aside  the  preacher  of  heretical 
doctrine  (ix.  23).  The  opinion  that  he  there  adduced  Scrip- 
tural proof  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  other  than  what  he 
had  often  heard  from  believers,  is  altogether  unhistorical, 
and  is  refuted  by  Gal.  i.  23,  which  does  not  however  exclude 
the  possibility  of  his  having  from  the  beginning,  on  the  basis 
of  his  experience,  preached  the  sending  of  the  Messiah  as  an 
act  of  Divine  grace  for  the  deliverance  of  sinners,  and  the 
sending  of  the  Spirit  as  the  means  which  made  the  appro- 
priation of  salvation  possible  to  the  individual. 

It  is  certain  that  the  acquaintance  of  the  Acts  with  these  beginnings 
of  Saul  is  inaccurate,  since  they  know  nothing  of  his  three  years'  sojourn 
in  Arabia,  and  therefore  make  his  short  ministry  in  Damascus,  to  which 
the  enmity  of  the  Jews  soon  put  an  end,  follow  immediately  on  his  con- 
version. We  must  not  therefore  make  this  activity  begin  before  the 
journey  to  Arabia  on  account  of  the  evdtus  in  Acts  ix.  20,  for  the  eMfas 
in  Gal.  i.  16  is  decisive  against  it ;  nor  must  we  reckon  as  belonging  to 
this  activity,  contrary  to  Acts  ix.  19,  23,  the  greater  part  of  the  three 
years  mentioned  in  Gal.  i.  18.  It  is  usual  to  make  the  computation  of 
the  year  of  his  conversion  dependent  on  a  consideration  of  the  time 
when  Damascus  might  have  been  under  Arabian  supremacy.  It  is  as- 
sumed that  Aretas  during  the  war  with  Herod  Antipas,  when  Vitellius 
had  led  his  troops  into  winter  quarters  after  hearing  of  the  death  of 
Tiberius  (f  37),  took  possession  of  the  rich  commercial  city  and  held  it 
till  the  new  arrangement  of  Arabian  affairs  by  Caligula  (circ.  38)  so  that 
the  driving  away  of  Paul  took  place  about  38  (three  years  after  his  con- 
version). Others,  however,  are  of  opinion  that  Aretas  only  held  the 
city  for  a  short  time  while  this  new  arrangement  was  taking  place,  since 
we  have  no  Roman  coins  from  Damascus  of  the  time  of  Caligula  and 
Claudius,  such  as  we  possess  of  the  time  of  Augustus  and  Tiberius,  so 
that  no  certain  data  for  a  computation  remain,  and  we  only  know  that 
the  conversion  cannot  have  taken  place  before  the  year  35.  Others  again 
doubt  whether  the  time  when  Damascus  was  held  by  Arab  princes,  even 
though  under  Roman  supremacy,  can  be  fixed  with  any  certainty ;  and 
according  Mommsen,  Damascus  remained  always  dependent  on  the 


156  fcAUL  IN  JERUSALEM. 

Roman  empire.  Comp.  Kiichler,  de  anno  quo  Pauliu  ad  tacra  Christiana 
eonvernu  ett,  Leip.,  1828.  Anger,  de  temp,  in  Actit  Apoit.  ratione,  Ldp., 
1833.  Wieseler,  Chronologie  df$  apoit.  Zeitaltert,  Getting.,  1848.  Keim 
in  Schenkel'a  Bibellex.,  i.,  1869. 

Though  Paul's  object  in  repairing  from  Damascus  to  Jeru- 
salem was  to  make  the  acquaintance  of  Peter,  yet  the  fact 
that  he  remained  there  for  a  period  of  fifteen  days  (Gal.  i. 
18)  shows  that  intercourse  with  Peter  could  not  possibly 
have  been  his  sole  occupation  ;  therefore  it  is  very  likely 
that  he  availed  himself  of  the  opportunity  to  dispute  with 
the  Hellenists,  till  their  deadly  enmity  compelled  him  to 
take  his  departure  (Acts  ix.  29).  But  the  account  in  the 
Galatian  Epistle  does  not  by  any  means  exclude  the  suppo- 
sition that  after  he  had  carried  out  the  design  of  visiting 
Peter  at  Jerusalem  he  might  gladly  have  continued  there  for 
a  longer  time  if  other  circumstances  had  not  hindered  him.1 

1  All  that  the  Apostle  has  in  view  is  to  show  the  length  of  time  that 
elapsed  before  he  went  to  Jerusalem,  and  that  his  object  in  going  was 
not  to  ask  counsel  of  Peter ;  also  that  the  time  he  passed  there  was  in  no 
way  connected  with  the  three  years  during  which  his  Christianity  had 
already  matured.  Therefore  though  it  is  certain  that  at  that  tiino  he 
had  not  yet  learnt  his  peculiar  gospel  of  salvation  (Gal.  i.  12),  since 
the  actual  meaning  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  was  made 
known  to  him  by  direct  revelation,  it  is  equally  certain  that  he  then 
first  asked  and  was  told  by  Peter  many  things  respecting  the  Lord's  life 
on  earth  (oomp.  Paret,  Jahrb.  /.  deuttche  Theol.,  1858,  1).  The  only 
respect  in  which  the  account  of  the  Acts  is  inaccurate  is  in  not  knowing 
that  among  the  authorities  in  Jerusalem,  Paul  only  at  that  time  maJe 
acquaintance  with  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord  ;  whereas  it  takes  for 
granted  that  he  hud  intercourse  there  with  all  the  primitive  apostles  (ix. 
28).  The  account  here  given,  that  when  the  Church  drew  back  timidly 
from  the  former  persecutor,  he  was  introduced  to  the  apostles  by  Bar- 
nabas (ix.  26  f.)(  is  not  contained  in  the  Galatian  Epistle,  which  had  of 
course  no  motive  for  mentioning  this  very  natural  circumstance  that 
had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  his  apostolic  independence.  That  he 
preached  in  Jerusalem  and  Damascus  is  moreover  confirmed  by  Gal.  i. 
22  f ,  apart  from  Bom.  xv.  29.  For  these  verses  taken  in  connection 
can  only  prove  that  because  on  leaving  Jerusalem  he  went  directly  to 
Syria  and  C'ilicia,  he  remained  unknown  to  the  (other)  Churches  of  Judea 
even  by  sight,  to  say  nothing  of  the  impossibility  of  his  having  been 
taught  by  one  of  the  other  apostles  presumably  working  among  these 


THE  APOSTLE   PAUL.  157 

At  all  events,  in  the  experiences  he  made  at  Jerusalem,  he 
perceived  an  indication  that  a  field  of  activity  was  not  as- 
signed to  him  in  the  place  where  his  former  persecuting  zeal 
had  been  exercised  (comp.  Acts  xxii.  17,  21);  and  therefore 
he  went  back  through  Syria  to  his  Cilician  home  (Gal.  i.  21 ; 
Acts  ix.  30).  There,  probably  in  his  native  town  of  Tarsus, 
Paul  remained  for  a  long  term  of  years,  during  which  we 
hear  nothing  of  him.  But  from  the  ardour  with  which  he 
embraced  the  new  faith,  it  may  be  supposed  that  he  would  not 
be  inactive  even  here.  From  the  fervent  love  he  bore  his 
fellow-countrymen  and  his  concern  for  their  salvation  (Rom. 
ix.  2  f.,  x.  1),  as  well  as  his  conviction  that  salvation  was 
destined  first  for  them  (Rom.  i.  16,  xi.  17)  he  would  natur- 
ally labour  above  all  for  their  conversion,  especially  as  no 
direct  sign  from  God  pointed  him  to  the  heathen.  It  is  true 
that  even  here,  according  to  Acts  xi.  25,  it  must  have  ap- 
peared that  he  possessed  a  peculiar  aptitude  for  bringing  the 
Gospel  to  the  heathen  also.  But  the  assumption  often  made, 
that  he  employed  this  time  in  preparing  himself  for  a 
ministry  among  them  by  means  of  the  educational  institu- 
tions of  his  ancestral  city,  is  excluded  by  his  own  express 
declaration  in  1  Cor.  ii.  1-5.  He  was  and  remained  an  iSioxnys 
T<3  Xoyw  (2  Cor.  xi.  6)  and  had  acquired  his  relative  facility 
in  the  use  of  Greek  and  his  acquaintance  with  the  Greek 
spirit  and  life  only  in  intercourse  with  Greeks,  not  from 
books.2  Certainly  the  Churches  in  Syria  and  Cilicia  men- 
Churches.  On  the  contrary  they  heard  with  gratitude  to  God  that  he  now 
preached  the  gospel  he  had  formerly  persecuted  and  therefore  required  no 
instruction  in  it.  It  is  in  accordance  neither  with  context  nor  wording 
to  make  this  apply  to  his  ministry  in  Cilicia  and  Syria.  There  was 
as  little  reason  for  mentioning  his  preaching  in  Damascus  and  Jerusalem 
as  for  mentioning  in  i.  21  his  residence  in  Syria  and  Cilicia. 

2  All  that  was  written  in  earlier  times  de  stupenda  eruditione  Pauli 
(Schramm  ;  Herhorn,  1710)  and  later  respecting  his  acquaintance  with 
Demosthenes,  Koster,  Stud,  und  Krit.,  1854),  is  pure  fancy.  The  saying 
of  his  countryman  Aratus  of  Cilicia  (Acts  xvii.  28),  appears  also  in  other 
writers,  and  is  expressly  quoted  as  a  poetical  saying  in  frequent  use  j  the 


158  PAUL  IN  ANTIOCH. 

tioned  in  Acts  xv.  24,  41  are  partly  the  fruit  of  these  years ; 
but  it  is  clear  even  from  the  former  passage  that  they  were 
mixed  Churches  which  stood  in  close  connection  with  Jeru- 
salem, and  cannot  be  looked  upon  as  the  creations  of  Paul 
peculiarly  and  exclusively. 

4.  Antioch,  the  chief  city  of  the  province  of  Syria  and  the 
residence  of  imperial  legates,  picturesquely  situated  in  the 
fruitful  plain  of  the  Orontes,  had  expanded  under  the 
Romans  into  a  world- renowned  city,  in  which  oriental  luxury 
coalesced  with  Greek  art  and  culture,  and  Greek  mythology 
with  the  cults  of  the  East.  The  numerous  Jews  settled 
there,  who  already  under  the  Seleucidae  enjoyed  great  free- 
dom and  had  their  own  Ethnarchs,  possessed  a  synagogue 
richly  furnished  with  treasure,  and  gained  numerous  prose- 
lytes from  among  the  heathen  (comp.  Acts  vi.  5,  Nicolaus). 
Members  of  the  Church  in  Jerusalem,  scattered  by  persecu- 
tion, had  preached  the  gospel  there  among  the  Jews,  until 
some  Hellenists  among  them  from  Cyprus  and  Cyrene  also 
attached  themselves  to  the  Hellenic  population,  to  whom 
they  gained  access  with  surprising  facility.  Barnabas  of 
Cyprus  brought  about  a  union  between  the  Church  of  this 
place,  which  thus  acquired  a  powerful  heathen-Christian 
element,  and  the  mother  Church  at  Jerusalem,  and  he  it 
was  who  brought  Saul,  with  whom  he  had  already  been  on 
friendly  terms  at  Jerusalem,  from  Tarsus,  in  order  to  share 
in  the  promising  harvest  among  the  Gentiles  (Acts  xi. 
19-25).  Specially  fitted,  as  a  Hellenist,  for  the  work,  the 
experience  of  his  own  life  taught  him  to  proclaim  the  exalted 
Divine  Lord  as  the  mediator  of  salvation  to  all  lost  sinners ; 
but  Barnabas  must  also  have  been  led  to  the  conclusion  that 

declaration  of  Epimenides  of  Crete  respecting  his  countrymen  (Tit.  i.  12) 
was  in  the  island  naturally  in  every  mouth ;  and  in  1  Cor.  xv.  33,  a  verse 
from  the  Thais  of  Menander  is  given  in  a  form  in  which  the  metre  is 
destroyed,  so  that  it  is  only  regarded  as  a  loeut  communii.  Paul  refused 
on  principle  to  weaken  the  Divine  power  of  the  Oospel  by  mixing  it  with 
human  wisdom  and  rhetoric  (1  Cor.  ii.  1  f.,  4  f.). 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL.  159 

this  was  the  right  place  for  him,  from  what  he  heard  of  his 
former  efficiency.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  first  year  that  he 
passed  here  working  together  with  Barnabas,  at  once  became 
very  fruitful  for  the  spread  of  Christianity,  since  the  name 
of  Christian  was  here  first  applied  by  the  heathen  to  be- 
lievers who  could  no  longer  be  regarded  as  a  Jewish  sect, 
because  they  consisted  for  the  most  part  of  former  heathen 
whose  faith  in  the  Messiah  of  Israel  was  by  no  means 
associated  with  the  acceptance  of  circumcision  and  the  legal 
customs  of  that  nation  (xi.  26) -1  Evidence  of  the  close 
communion  that  continued  to  exist  between  this  and  the 
mother  Church  at  Jerusalem  is  afforded  by  the  collection 
which  the  former  sent  to  the  latter  when  Agabus  foretold  a 
dearth  by  which  Palestine  was  visited  under  Claudius 
(xi.  27,  30). 

According  to  Acts  xi.  30,  xii.  25,  Saul  in  company  with  Barnabas  was 
the  bearer  of  this  collection.  This  might  have  been  simply  an  erroneous 
conception  on  the  part  of  the  Acts ;  and  Saul  might  not  have  made  the 
journey  at  all,  or  at  least  not  have  gone  as  far  as  Jerusalem.  But  the 
current  opinion  that  here  the  Acts  are  at  variance  with  the  Galatiau 
Epistle,  overlooks  the  fact  that  only  in  Gal.  i.  where  Paul  asserts  that 
he  did  not  receive  his  gospel  from  man,  was  it  important  to  show  bow 
late  he  came  to  Jerusalem,  and  how  after  a  short  sojourn  in  that  place 
where  he  became  acquainted  with  Peter  and  James,  he  withdrew  entirely 
from  the  sphere  of  the  Jewish  Churches  where  he  might  have  come  into 
contact  with  the  primitive  apostles.  On  the  other  hand,  as  soon  as  it  is 
mentioned  in  i.  23  that  he  himself  appeared  as  a  preacher  of  the  gospel, 
thus  excluding  the  idea  of  his  having  received  instruction  in  it,  all 
interest  in  counting  up  his  later  visits  to  Jerusalem  falls  away.  The 
time  of  the  journey,  as  stated  in  ii.  1  f.,  merely  suggests  the  consider- 

1  Lipsius  (uber  den  Ursprung  und  altesten  Gebrauch  des  Christenna- 
mens,  Jena,  1873)  has  convincingly  proved  that  the  name  was  given  to 
Christians  by  the  heathen,  and  that  it  originated  among  Greek-speaking 
people,  so  that  the  scruples  of  Baur  and  others  with  respect  to  the  his- 
torical character  of  this  account,  are  set  aside.  In  Nero's  time  it  was 
already  current  in  Rome  (Tacitus,  Ann.,  15, 44)  "  quos  vulgus  christianoa 
appellat,"  comp.  Suetonius,  Nero,  15) ;  and  if  it  does  not  appear  in  the 
writings  of  Paul,  it  only  follows  from  this  that  the  Christians  had  not 
appropriated  it  to  themselves  (comp.  also  1  Pet.  iv.  16). 


160         PAUL'S  FIRST  MISSION ABY  JOURNEY. 

stion  that  it  was  not  until  fourteen  years  after  the  beginning  of  his 
independent  activity  that  he  had  felt  it  necessary  to  lay  his  gospel 
before  the  authorities  in  Jerusalem.  That  daring  the  course  of  these 
years  he  once  visited  Jerusalem  with  another  object  is  not  excluded 
thereby.  If  then  his  first  visit  to  Jerusalem  was  somewhere  in  the  year 
88  (comp.  No.  3),  some  six  years  would  have  elapsed,  in  which  he  had 
not  repaired  to  the  city,  but  had  worked  independently  in  Cilicia,  with 
the  exception  of  a  year  in  Antioch  (Acts  xi.  26),  when  the  famine  which 
the  prophet  Agabus  had  predicted  lay  heavy  on  Judea,  in  the  year  44  as 
is  generally  assumed.* 

The  idea  of  a  formal  missionary  journey  first  arose  in 
the  Church  at  Antioch.  Barnabas  and  Saul  were  expressly 
selected  for  that  purpose,  from  among  the  many  prophets 
who  were  active  in  the  Church,  and  were  sent  forth  with 
prayer  and  the  imposition  of  hands  (xiii.  1-3).  John  Mark, 
whom  his  cousin  Barnabas  had  brought  from  Jerusalem  to 
Antioch,  was  taken  with  them  as  an  assistant,  but  appears 
soon  to  have  lost  heart  and  returned  to  Perga,  whence  it  was 
intended  to  penetrate  deeper  into  Asia  (xii.  25,  xiii.  5,  13). 
The  missionaries  went  first  to  the  house  of  Barnabas,  to 
Cyprus,  where  they  already  hoped  according  to  xi.  19,  to 
find  openings ;  they  travelled  through  the  whole  island  from 
Salamis  to  Paphos,  and  gained  over  to  the  faith  the  Roman 
proconsul  Sergius  Paulus  (xiii.  4-12).  Thence  they  sailed 
to  the  opposite  coast  of  Pamphylia  and  up  the  mouth  of 
the  Cestrus  to  the  town  of  Perga,  whence  they  travelled  to 
Antioch  in  Pisidia  where  they  appear  to  have  had  a  longer 

*  The  Acts  also  appear  to  assume  this,  since  they  obviously  presup- 
pose that  the  deputies  only  departed  from  Jerusalem  after  the  death  of 
Herod  Agrippa,  who  died  in  the  year  44,  soon  after  the  passover,  having 
previously  put  James  the  son  of  Zebedee  to  death  and  imprisoned  Peter 
(Acts  xii.  25).  It  must  not,  however,  be  left  out  of  account,  that  the 
arrangement  of  events  according  to  which  the  resolution  to  undertake 
the  missionary  journey  immediately  follows  the  collection  journey,  in 
which  the  messengers  had  experienced  the  acme  of  Jewish  enmity 
against  Christianity,  is  conditioned  by  the  pragmatism  of  the  Acts 
(§  50,  3),  and  that  the  Palestinian  famine  under  Claudius  probably  hap- 
pened several  years  later  (comp.  Keim,  Aut  dem  Urchritttnthum,  Zftrich, 
1878),  so  that  Saul's  ministry  in  Cilicia  extends  over  several  years. 


THE   APOSTLE   PAUL.  161 

term  of  work,  till  tlie  persecution  of  the  Jews  drove  them 
away  to  Lycaonia  (xiii.  13-52) .3  Here  they  laboured  in 
Iconium,  Lystra  and  Derbe,  but  at  the  farthest  accessible 
point  eastward  they  were  already  near  the  borders  of  Cilicia, 
where  they  turned  aside  in  order  to  strengthen  and  organize 
the  newly-founded  Churches,  going  back  to  Perga  where 
they  appear  to  have  remained  longer  on  this  occasion,  and 
finally  down  to  the  sea-coast,  where  they  took  ship  from 
Attalia  to  Antioch  (Acts  xiv.).4 


*  When  G  alatia  became  a  Roman  province  after  the  death  of  Amyntas, 
who  by  the  favour  of  Augustus  united  important  parts  of  the  neigh- 
bouring provinces  under  hia  dominion  (25  B.C.),  Pisidia  and  large  por- 
tions of  Lycaonia,  particularly  the  cities  of  Lystra,  Derbe,  and  probably 
Iconium,  were  attached  to  this  province.  Upon  this  is  founded  the 
hypothesis  of  Mynster  (Einl,  in  d.  Brief  an  die  Galater,  in  his  Kleins 
Theologischen  Schriften,  Copenhagen,  1825,  comp.  Niemeyer,  de  temp. — 
ep.  ad  Gal.,  Gb'ttingen,  1827),  that  the  Galatian  Churches  to  which  Paul 
afterwards  wrote,  were  those  founded  on  this  journey.  This  hypothesis 
found  at  that  time  much  assent  and  was  again  renewed  by  Kenan,  Haus- 
rath,  Weizsacker  (Jahrb.f.  d.  TheoL,  1876),  Wendt,  Schenkel  and  others. 
But  the  name  of  Galatia,  as  applied  to  a  portion  of  land  legally  joined 
to  a  province,  was  never  generally  adopted ;  the  Acts  undoubtedly  make 
a  distinction  between  the  FaXem/ei)  x^Pa  (xyi-  6,  xviii.  23)  and  the  pro- 
vinces here  named.  There  were  in  fact  already  Churches  in  Galatia 
proper  (xviii.  23),  at  the  time  when  Paul  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  and  it  is  absolutely  inconceivable  that  he  should  notwithstanding 
have  addressed  inhabitants  of  these  provinces  as  FaXrfrat  (Gal.  iii.  1), 
simply  because  they  too  legally  belonged  to  the  province  of  Galatia. 
Compare  Sieffert  (in  Meyer's  Comm.  z.  Galaterbrief,  1880)  and  Holsten 
(Das  Evangelium  des  Paulus,  Berlin,  1880). 

4  The  length  of  this  journey  cannot  be  accurately  determined,  since 
the  Acts  in  reality  only  hint  at  a  longer  residence  in  Antioch,  and  give 
a  bare  sketch  of  everything  else  that  occurred  down  to  the  conflict  with 
Elymas  in  Paphos  (xii.  6-12)  and  the  events  in  Lystra  (xiv.  8-20),  for 
which  moreover  they  fix  no  time.  How  many  of  the  troubles,  suffer- 
ings and  dangers  recorded  in  2  Cor.  xi.,  may  have  happened  on  the 
journey,  although  the  Acts  do  not  notice  theml  And  whether  this 
journey  immediately  followed  the  return  from  Jerusalem  remains  en- 
tirely doubtful,  since  the  close  connection  in  which  the  missionary 
journey  appears  to  stand  with  Israel's  hardening,  which  had  manifestly 
reached  its  climax  in  chap,  xii.,  belongs  perhaps  to  the  pragmatism  of 
the  narrator  (comp.  note  2). 


162  THE  APOSTLE   PAUL. 

5.  For  Saul  of  Tarsus,  this  journey  was  in  many  ways  a 
decisive  turning-point.  Having  been  taken  to  Jerusalem  by 
Barnabas,  called  by  him  to  Antioch,  and  with  him  been 
appointed  a  deputy  of  the  Church  in  the  matter  of  the  col- 
lection, he  undoubtedly  undertook  the  journey  only  in  con- 
junction with  Barnabas,  who  in  accordance  with  his  whole 
position  in  the  Church  at  Antioch  was  the  actual  leader  of  the 
missionary  enterprise,  which  was  also  directed  in  the  first 
instance  towards  his  home.  It  is  obviously  the  intention  of 
the  Acts  to  indicate  this  by  always  naming  Barnabas  before 
Saul  in  the  beginning  of  the  journey  (xiii.  2,  7).  Only  after 
the  great  success  of  Saul  in  Paphos  is  there  a  change  in  this 
respect  (xiii.  13,  ol  ircpl  IlaOXov),  Paul  being  now  just  as 
consistently  put  forward  (xiii.  43,  46,  50) -1  It  is  Paul  who 
preaches  in  Antioch,  whose  healing  of  the  lame  man  at 
Lystra  calls  forth  the  complications  in  that  place ;  doubtless 
it  became  apparent  on  this  journey  that  Paul  was  the  man 
specially  adapted  for  proper  missionary  preaching  and  effi- 
cient work  among  unbelievers,  while  Barnabas  was  better 
fitted  for  the  consolation  of  new  converts  (iv.  36).  The  plan 
of  the  mission,  in  accordance  with  which  a  series  of  Churches 
was  founded  throughout  the  whole  south-east  of  Asia  Minor, 
reaching  out  a  hand  across  the  Taurus  to  the  Churches  of 
Cilicia,  as  they  did  to  the  Syrian  Churches,  which  again  were 
the  connecting  medium  with  those  of  Judea,  was  manifestly 
his  work.  In  these  successful  results  of  his  activity  and  in 
the  special  gift  for  founding  Churches,  Paul  saw  afterwards 
the  peculiar  distinguishing  mark  and  the  Divine  attestation 
of  his  apostleship  (1  Cor.  iii.  10,  ix.  t  f. ;  2  Cor.  iii.  2; 
Bom.  xv.  20).  The  peculiar  position  which  Jesus  Himself 

1  The  only  exception  (xiv.  14)  is  manifestly  conditioned  by  the  circum- 
stance that  the  people  of  Lystra  take  Barnabas  for  Zens,  Panl  only  for 
Hermes;  and  yet  this  too  shows  that  the  former  was  indeed  the  imposing 
presence,  bat  the  latter  the  proper  spokesman  of  the  mission  (bat  comp. 
S  60,  8,  note  1). 


HIS  MISSIONARY  LABOUBS.  1C3 

gave  to  the  Twelve  in  the  Church,  Paul  could  only  trace  back 
ex  eventu  to  the  circumstance  that  He  had  chosen  and  trained 
them  to  be  its  first  founders  (comp.  Matt.  xvi.  18)  ;  and  if 
they  had  had  the  privilege  of  intercourse  with  Jesus,  he  too, 
like  them,  had  been  counted  worthy  of  a  manifestation  of 
the  Risen  and  Exalted  One  (1  Cor.  xv.  8,  ix.  1).  The  fact 
that  he  felt  himself  equally  privileged  with  them  notwith- 
standing the  consciousness  of  his  unworthiness  (1  Cor.  xv. 
9),  and  claimed  to  be  the  same  as  they,  the  Divine  mira- 
culous aid  which  attested  itself  in  his  o^/Atia,  could  only  be 
a  sign  that  he  was  no  false  apostle  (2  Cor.  xii.  12).  Thus  it 
was  this  journey  from  which  he  returned  with  the  ripe  con- 
sciousness of  his  apostolic  calling  and  destination.2 

6.  The  Acts  do  not  by  any  means  say  that  Barnabas  and 
Saul  were  sent  out  on  a  mission  to  the  heathen ;  it  appears 
rather  that  their  immediate  object  had  reference  to  the 
Jewish  Diaspora,  whereby  an  incidental  preaching  of  the 
Gospel  to  the  heathen,  resulting  in  their  conversion,  is  as 
little  excluded  as  it  had  been  in  Antioch  itself.  At  Cyprus 
we  hear  only  of  preaching  in  the  synagogues  (xiii.  5)  ;  even 
the  Roman  proconsul,  over  whom  the  Jewish  sorcerer  pos- 
sessed so  great  an  influence,  and  who  seems  to  have  been 
predispose^  in  favour  of  the  gospel  (xiii.  7),  must  already 
have  approached  Judaism.  The  experiences  in  Pisidiau  An- 
tioch are  obviously  given  with  such  minuteness,  in  order  to 
show  how  Paul's  preaching  in  the  synagogue  attracted  even 
the  heathen,  and  how  jealousy  of  their  crowding  in  entirely 


'  The  Acts  indeed  speak  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  as  air6<rTo\oi  (xiv.  4, 14), 
but  apart  from  the  fact  that  they  were  both  delegates  of  the  Church  at 
Antioch  (comp.  2  Cor.  viii.  23)  and  that  the  name  therefore  is  not  yet 
necessarily  employed  in  a  technical  sense,  Paul  too  on  one  occasion 
included  his  companions  and  assistants  in  the  name  Apostle,  and  also 
counted  other  prominent  authorities  of  the  Church,  as  in  a  certain  sense 
apostles  (Gal.  i.  19  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  7).  But  on  this  journey  he  became  con- 
scious of  his  specific  gift  in  direct  contrast  with  Barnabas,  by  virtue  of 
which  he  felt  himself  to  be  an  apostle. 


164  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

closed  the  hearts  of  the  Jews  against  him.  On  this  occasion 
Paul  for  the  first  time  told  them  that  their  rejection  of  the 
gospel  compelled  him  to  turn  to  the  Gentiles  who  received 
his  word  joyfully,  and  for  the  first  time  the  fanatical  enmity 
of  the  Jews  put  an  end  to  the  ministry  of  the  missionaries 
in  that  place  (xiii.  44-50).  Yet  the  activity  in  Iconium 
again  begins  with  preaching  in  the  synagogue,  which  was 
accepted  with  faith  by  Jews  and  Hellenes ;  but  again  the 
Jews  stirred  up  the  population  against  the  preachers  and 
compelled  them  to  give  way  (xiv.  1-6).  The  healing  of  a  lame 
man  in  Lystra  inspired  the  Gentiles  with  enthusiasm  for  them, 
and  it  was  only  the  agitation  of  the  Jews  who  had  crept  in 
from  Antioch  and  Iconium  that  led  to  a  change  (xiv.  11-19) -1 
It  must  have  been  experiences  of  this  nature  that  gave  rise 
to  the  view  in  the  Apostle's  mind,  that  the  Jewish  want  of 
faith  in  the  gospel  led  to  their  rejection  and  the  calling  of 
the  Gentiles  in  their  place,  as  well  as  to  the  salvation  of  the 
latter  through  Divine  mercy  (Rom.  xi.  11,  17  ff.,  30  f.). 
By  virtue  of  his  religious  perception  he  could  see  nothing 
but  the  verification  of  a  Divine  plan  of  salvation  in  what  he 
actually  experienced.  If  the  increasing  enmity  of  the  Jews 
to  the  gospel  compelled  him  more  and  more  to  turn  his 
ministry  to  the  Gentile  world,  which  met  him  with  surprising 
susceptibility,  he  only  regai-ded  this  as  a  manifestation  of 
the  Divine  purpose  to  take  the  gospel  from  the  Jews  for 
whom  it  was  first  intended,  and  to  give  it  to  the  Gentiles. 

1  It  is  certainly  consistent  with  the  whole  plan  of  the  Acts  that  these 
relations  are  so  copiously  presented  in  the  communications  respecting 
the  journey  which  are  elsewhere  so  scanty,  but  it  is  an  entirely  unjustifi- 
able assertion  of  the  Ttibingen  school  that  this  representation  is  un- 
historical.  Notwithstanding  the  motives  that  predisposed  the  Apostle 
to  take  the  gospel  first  of  all  to  his  fellow-countrymen  (No.  3),  yet  the 
synagogue  offered  the  natural  and  only  starting-point  for  all  activity  in 
heathen  lands.  It  even  appears  that  all  the  Churches  founded  in  Asia 
Minor  still  contained  a  strong  Jewish  element,  having  been  organized 
on  the  model  of  the  synagogue  (xiv.  23) ;  but  the  heathen  element  must 
everywhere  have  preponderated^ 


HIS  MISSIONAEY  LABOUES.  165 

And  if  it  were  lie  who  was  appointed  to  carry  out  this  Divine 
intention,  it  was  natural,  after  the  experiences  he  had  al- 
ready made  during  his  ministry  in  Cilicia  and  Syrian  An- 
tioch,  that  he  should  become  more  and  more  convinced  that 
he  was  specially  called,  in  distinction  from  the  other  apostles, 
to  be  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  (Rom.  xi.  13,  comp.  i.  5, 
xv.  16),  and  that  the  miracle  of  his  conversion  was  from  the 
beginning  directed  to  this  object  (Gal.  i.  16). 

7.  The  fact  that  Saul  now  received  the  name  of  Paul, 
by  which  he  invariably  calls  himself  in  his  epistles,  is  ob- 
viously in  keeping  with  the  epoch-making  importance  of 
this  journey.  We  have  an  intimation  of  this  also  in  the 
Acts,  where  from  the  beginning  as  far  as  xiii.  7  he  is  always 
called  Saul,  and  then,  after  the  designation  SavXos  6  not 
IlavXos  has  been  given  to  him  in  xiii.  9,  and  from  xiv.  13  is  as 
constantly  called  by  the  name  of  Paul.  But  this  change  of 
name  has  obviously  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  events 
there  narrated,  even  in  the  opinion  of  the  narrator.1  Since 
Barnabas  and  Saul,  who  according  to  xiii.  1  f.  were  set 
apart  for  the  missionary  journey,  were  named  in  the  former 
way  among  the  prophets  in  the  Church,  these  names  must 
also  have  been  used  where  the  messengers  are  mentioned 
by  name  for  the  first  time  (xiii.  7).  But  when  a  transition 
is  made  to  the  new  names  in  what  follows,  where  Paul  first 
appears  as  the  proper  leader  of  the  mission  (No.  5,  xiii.  9, 
13),  it  is  as  clear  as  possible  that  he  began  to  bear  the  name 
on  this  journey  in  proportion  as  his  peculiar  ministry  opened 
out.  It  evidently  seemed  to  him  to  be  better  adapted  to 

1  The  opinion  that  he  adopted  this  name  from  the  proconsul  Sergius 
Paulus  who  had  been  converted  by  him  (Hieron.,  de  Vir.  III.,  6),  al- 
though still  held  by  Meyer,  Ewald  and  others,  is  quite  untenable,  and 
must  not  be  ascribed,  with  Eaur,  to  the  author  of  the  Acts,  since  they 
do  not  give  him  this  name  just  after  the  event  (xiii.  12).  And  it  is 
entirely  opposed  to  the  mind  of  the  Apostle  to  make  the  new  name  com- 
memorative of  his  first  manifestation  of  apostolic  power  on  the  person 
of  Ely  mas,  on  which  occasion  he  is  first  called  by  it. 


166  THE   APOSTLE   PAUL. 

his  ministry  in  heathen  lands,  and  the  more  conscious  he 
became  of  his  apostolic  calling,  so  much  the  more  did  he 
employ  this  as  his  proper  apostolic  name.  It  does  not  follow 
that  he  first  adopted  it  on  this  occasion,  or  that  he  Latinized 
his  Hebrew  name,  a  thing  which  the  Acts  would  certainly 
have  expressly  indicated.  The  assumption  also  that  he 
adopted  it  at  his  conversion,  is  entirely  arbitrary,  pre- 
supposing that  he  attached  to  it  some  meaning  with  refer- 
ence to  that  event,  which  however  cannot  be  proved.  All 
inquiry  into  an  explanation  of  the  name  is  entirely  fruit- 
less. It  is  most  probable  that  Saul  bore  the  well-known 
Roman  name  Paul  in  addition  to  his  Jewish  one,  as  was 
very  usual  among  Hellenistic  Jews,  especially  as  he  pos- 
sessed Roman  citizenship  (No.  1).  Hitherto  he  had  had 
no  reason  for  laying  aside  his  Jewish  name,  by  which  he 
was  naturally  still  called  in  Jewish  circles,  whilst  the  nse  of 
the  Roman  one  was  more  appropriate  to  his  present  ministry. 

§  14.    PAUL  AND  THK  PRIMITIVE  APOSTLES. 

1.  Jesus  had  appeared  in  Israel,  and  on  principle  laboured 
for  Israel  exclusively.  He  wished  to  realize  the  kingdom 
of  God,  according  to  promise,  among  the  chosen  race,  who 
were  to  participate  in  its  salvation  to  the  greatest  extent. 
It  is  true  that  when  the  people  became  more  and  more 
hopelessly  hardened,  He  had  spoken  of  the  passing  over  of 
salvation  to  other  peoples,  and  of  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem and  the  temple ;  but  this  prophetic  threat  might 
remain  for  ever  unfulfilled,  if  the  nation  as  such  were  to 
turn  and  be  converted.  Long  since  had  Jesus  referred  to 
the  great  Jonah-sign  of  His  resurrection,  which  once  again 
would  bring  the  nation  and  its  leaders  to  a  final  decision. 
His  apostles,  whose  destination  was  already  indicated  by  the 
fact  of  their  being  twelve  in  number,  were  called  to  be 
witnesses  of  His  resurrection,  by  the  preaching  of  which 


PAUL  ANt)   THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTLES.  1G? 

they  were  to  bring  the  people  to  repentance,  and  to  lead 
them  to  believe  in  the  exalted  Messiah.1  They  conld  have 
had  no  thought  of  a  heathen  mission  for  the  very  reason 
that,  according  to  the  prediction  of  the  prophets,  salvation 
was  first  of  all  to  be  accomplished  in  Israel,  and  only  then 
were  the  nations,  called  by  Jehovah,  to  come  of  their  own 
accord  to  participate  in  it.  To  make  the  fulfilment  of 
this  promise  possible,  the  primitive  apostles  laboured  for 
the  conversion  of  their  own  people  (Acts  ii.  38  f.,  iii.  19 
ff.,  25  f.).  Nor  did  the  mission  to  Israel  appear  by  any 
means  hopeless  in  the  beginning.  The  fact  that  they  ad- 
hered faithfully  to  the  law  of  their  fathers  with  the  whole 
primitive  Church,  and  even,  as  truly  pious  Israelites,  sought 
to  fulfil  it  with  the  most  rigorous  strictness,  contributed 
essentially  to  this  end.  No  word  of  Jesus  had  released 
them  from  the  obligation  to  it  under  which  they  had  been 
placed  by  circumcision,  only  that  its  fulfilment  in  the  sense 
of  the  Master  naturally  differed  in  many  respects  from  that 
inculcated  by  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  (Matt.  v.  17,  20)  .2 
But  even  if  by  this  means  they  acquired  a  freer  moral  atti- 
tude in  certain  points  towards  the  letter  of  the  law,  yet  there 
could  be  no  question  of  a  renunciation  of  the  law  where  they 
were  concerned,  since  they  would  thus  have  made  a  breach 
between  themselves  and  their  still  unbelieving  countrymen, 

1  Neither  the  oldest  apostolic  tradition  of  the  Lord's  words  nor  John's 
Gospel  contains  any  command  to  the  Twelve  with  respect  to  a  Gentile 
mission ;   it  is  Mark  who,  in  presence  of  the  great  extension  of  the 
Pauline  Gentile  mission,  first  introduced  a  prediction  of  it  into  a  say- 
ing whose  original  acceptation  shows  nothing  of  it  (xiii.  9f. ;  comp.  also 
xiv.  9).    It  is  only  the  first  Evangelist  who  makes  the  exalted  Christ 
send  the  Twelve  to  all  nations  (Matt,  xxviii.   18  f.),  while  the  third 
makes  the  mission  proceed  from  the  risen  Saviour  (Luke  xxiv.  17)  at  a 
time  when  by  God's  judgment  on  Israel  their  definite  hardening  was 
already  decided. 

2  It  is  quite  arbitrary  to  assume  that,  though  expecting  from  their 
Messiah  salvation  and  deliverance,  they  endeavoured  to  win  it  by  this 
fulfilment  of  the  law,  whose  insufficiency  must  have  been  just  as  clear  to 
them,  as  true  Israelites,  as  to  the  apostle  Paul. 


108  THE   APOSTLE   PAUL. 

which  would  have  rendered  it  impossible  to  influence  them, 
and  have  destroyed  all  prospect  of  the  ardently  desired  and 
still  expected  conversion  of  the  whole  nation. 

2.  It  is  a  thoroughly  erroneous  idea  that  Stephen  at  least 
appeared  in  the  primitive  Church  as  the  forerunner  of  Paul. 
The  thing  that  excited  the  fanaticism  of  the  unbelieving 
Jews  against  him,  was  simply  his  reiteration  of  Christ's 
threatening  prophecy,  according  to  which  the  continued  hard- 
ening of  the  mass  of  the  nation  must  lead  to  the  destruction 
of  the  temple,  and  with  it  to  the  dissolution  of  the  theocratic 
institutions  of  national  life.  Neither  his  appearing,  nor  the 
persecution  to  which  it  gave  rise,  which  moreover  soon  ex- 
hausted itself  in  the  impossible  attempt  to  bring  forward 
anything  tenable  against  the  believers  in  Christ,  in  any  way 
altered  the  position  of  the  primitive  Church  towards  the  law 
or  the  question  of  the  mission.  Their  dispersion  after  the 
death  of  Stephen  naturally  contributed  to  the  more  rapid 
spread  of  the  gospel  in  wider  circles  (Acts  viii.  4)  ;  but  even 
where  preachers  went  abroad  to  Phoenicia,  Cyprus,  Syria  or 
elsewhere  among  the  Jewish  Diaspora,  their  message  was 
addressed  to  the  Jews  exclusively  (xi.  19).  There  were 
already  believing  Jews  in  Damascus  (ix.  2),  and  the  con- 
version of  Samaria  (viii.  5-14),  that  lay  still  nearer  to 
Jerusalem,  had  already  been  effected  in  connection  with  the 
founding  of  the  Church  in  Galilee  (ix.  31)  .*  It  is  un- 

1  If  the  pragmatism  of  the  Acts  regards  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen 
and  the  persecution  which  followed,  as  well  as  the  subsequent  execution 
of  James  and  imprisonment  of  Peter  by  Uerod  Agrippa,  as  the  visible 
stages  of  an  increasing  hardening  of  the  nation  against  the  gospel,  which 
in  the  Pauline  sense  was  to  pave  the  way  according  to  God's  decree  for 
its  passing  over  to  the  heathen,  it  obviously  does  not  follow  that  this 
was  the  view  of  the  primitive  Church  from  the  beginning.  Such  prag- 
matism has  also  determined  the  order  of  the  different  narratives  (coiup. 
§  13,  4,  note  2,  4 ;  §  50,  3,  note  2),  which  therefore  affords  no  guarantee 
that  the  conversion  of  Samaria  only  occurred  after  the  death  of  Stephen, 
especially  as  the  introduction  of  the  source  manifestly  here  reproduced 
(viii.  5)  does  not  at  all  look  as  if  Philip  had  come  as  a  fugitive  to 


PAUL  AND   THE   PEIMITIVE  APOSTLES.  169 

questionably  an  error  to  suppose  that  the  activity  of  the 
primitive  apostles  was  completely  limited  to  Jerusalem, 
or  at  most  to  Jndea.  The  fact  that  Paul  on  his  first  visit 
found  Peter  there  alone  (Gal.  i.  19),  can  only  be  explained 
by  assuming  that  many  of  them  were  already  travelling 
about,  as  implied  in  1  Cor.  ix.  5.  How  easy  it  must  have 
been  for  Jews  of  the  Diaspora,  who  had  been  converted 
when  visiting  Jerusalem  at  their  festivals,  to  induce  some  of 
them  to  carry  the  gospel  to  their  countrymen  outside;  or 
other  members  of  the  primitive  Church  might  in  their  com- 
mercial travels  bear  the  seed  of  the  gospel  to  the  syna- 
gogues of  the  Diaspora.  But  this  spread  of  the  gospel  was 
entirely  incidental,  and  the  Acts  are  right  in  representing 
the  organized  missionary  journey  of  Barnabas  and  Saul  as 
an  epoch-making  event.  As  Jesus  Himself  had  already 
come  in  contact  with  individual  Gentiles,  it  would  have  been 
very  surprising  if  a  like  thing  had  not  early  happened  to  the 
primitive  apostles ;  and  that  such  was  the  fact  is  shown  by 
the  narratives  respecting  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  and  the  cen- 
turion Cornelius.8  As  the  primitive  Church  in  the  latter 

Samaria  from  Jerusalem.  Though  the  conversion  of  the  half -heathen 
Samaria  forma  in  the  Acts  the  first  step  to  a  Gentile  mission,  the  primi- 
tive Church  did  not  certainly  look  upon  it  in  that  light,  since  Jesus 
Himself  had  already  worked  successfully  there  (John  iv.  40  ff.),  and 
had  by  His  judgment  respecting  the  Samaritans  prevented  the  primitive 
Church  from  regarding  these  children  of  Jacob  (John  iv.  12)  as  shut  out 
from  the  salvation  of  Israel. 

2  Since  the  two  narratives  of  Philip  contained  in  Acts  viii.  are  only 
connected  together  in  the  interest  of  pragmatism,  and  viii.  26  proves 
plainly  that  Philip  was  not  at  that  time  a  fugitive,  it  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  the  baptism  of  the  treasurer  is  subsequent  to  the  Stephen- 
catastrophe  ;  and  the  story  of  Cornelius  in  Acts  x.,  according  to  xv.  7 
undoubtedly  belongs  to  an  earlier  date  (comp.  §  50,  3,  note  2).  But  it 
is  impossible  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  could  intend  by  this  story  to 
make  Peter  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles ;  since  in  ix.  15  he  expressly 
represents  Paul  as  having  been  called  for  this  purpose,  describes  Cor- 
nelius himself  as  a  proselyte  of  the  gate  (x.  2),  and  only  in  xi.  20  gives 
such  prominence  to  the  beginning  of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  the 
Greeks  at  Antioch.  But  in  truth  the  narrative  furnishes  no  presumption 


170  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

case  was  convinced  that  God  called  individual  Gentiles  to 
salvation  by  nnmistakeable  indications,  before  the  conver- 
sion of  all  Israel,  giving  them  repentance  unto  life  (ri.  18), 
so  in  like  manner  it  was  doubtless  taken  as  a  matter  of 
course  when  the  knowledge  of  the  Gentile  conversion  in 
Antioch  came  to  Jerusalem  (xi.  22),  the  epoch-making  sig- 
nificance of  which  is  made  so  prominent  by  the  Acts,  for 
the  reason  that  nothing  is  related  of  a  Gentile-apostolic 
ministry  of  Paul  in  Syria  and  Cilicia  (and  justly  so,  comp. 
§  13,  3).  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  first  baptisms  of  Gentiles 
took  place  without  the  question  having  even  been  mooted  as 
to  whether  they  should  be  made  to  pass  over  to  Judaism 
by  means  of  circumcision  and  the  law.  There  were  now, 
even  in  the  believing  Church  of  the  Messiah,  uncircumcised 
persons  who  did  not  live  according  to  the  legal  manner  of 
the  Jews,  but  these  always  remained  exceptions,  to  whom  an 
exceptional  position  may  have  been  willingly  granted.8 

3.  The  question  took  quite  another  form  in  consequence 
of  the  great  missionary  journey  of  Paul  and  Barnabas.  In 
it  a  series  of  predominantly  Gentile  Christian  Churches  was 
founded;  but  even  here  the  experiences,  on  the  ground  of 

whatever  to  justify  the  Gentile  mission  or  to  make  it  obligatory,  since 
Peter  was  compelled  by  Divine  directions  quite  exceptional,  to  preach 
the  gospel  to  Cornelias,  nor  even  in  favour  of  the  baptism  of  believing 
Gentiles,  since  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  preceded  it  in  the  case  of 
Cornelias  (comp.  z.  47).  Nor  was  it  either  of  these  that  aroused  sus- 
picion in  the  primitive  Church,  bat  solely  that  Peter  went  in  to  the 
uncircumciscd  and  ate  with  them,  a  thing  which  he  dared  not  do  as  a 
Jew  faithful  to  the  law  (xi.  8).  We  see  from  this  why  the  primitive 
apostles  could  have  had  no  idea  of  a  heathen  mission  (comp.  No.  1). 

*  Yet  the  hope  was  always  entertained  of  the  entire  conversion  of 
Israel  in  the  immediate  future,  in  consequence  of  which  the  Messiah 
would  return  to  complete  the  kingdom  of  God.  If  then  all  peoples  were 
to  come  to  the  salvation  realized  in  Israel  according  to  the  prediction  of 
the  prophets,  it  was  reserved  for  the  Messiah  to  regulate  the  principle 
of  life-association  between  them  and  the  Jews,  either  by  the  heathen 
attaching  themselves  in  a  body  to  the  theocracy  of  Israel  and  its  ordin- 
ances ;  or  by  laying  down  under  Divine  direction  rules  of  life  entirely 
new,  in  the  completed  kingdom  of  God. 


PAXJL  AND  THE  PBIMITIVE  APOSTLES.  171 

which  this  had  been  effected,  excluded  all  idea  of  demanding 
from  the  Gentiles  who  received  the  gospel  a  previous  accept- 
ance of  Judaism.1  These  things  were  naturally  regarded 
under  a  different  aspect  in  the  primitive  Church.  But  the 
reception  of  an  uncircumcised  person  into  the  Church  was 
no  longer  an  isolated  and  exceptional  case ;  a  large  Church 
of  Gentile  Christians  began  to  be  formed,  surpassing  the 
primitive  Church  in  numbers  and  extent,  and  therefore 
necessarily  of  greater  importance  for  the  development  of 
the  Church  of  the  Messiah,  whose  members  moreover  lived 
under  different  arrangements.  The  time  in  fact  seemed 
now  to  have  arrived  when  the  former  exceptional  position 
of  the  Gentile  Christians  was  to  cease,  and  their  relation  to 
the  believing  Jews  to  be  regulated  in  accordance  with  new 
principles.  But  since  there  could  be  no  thought  of  a  change 
of  legal  ordinances  where  the  latter  were  concerned,  so  long 
as  no  Divine  intimation  released  them  from  the  obligation 
imposed  on  them  by  circumcision,  and  so  long  as  the  con- 
version of  Israel,  to  which  such  intimation  would  have  been 
an  insuperable  obstacle,  was  not  yet  completed,  there 
seemed  to  be  no  other  alternative  than  that  the  Gentile 
Christians  should,  by  accepting  circumcision  and  the  law, 
incorporate  themselves  with  the  chosen  people,  in  order  to 
participate  in  *the  salvation  brought  and  still  to  be  brought 


1  Paul  recognised  in  the  circumstances  that  led  him  to  turn  his 
activity  more  and  more  to  the  Gentile  world  the  Divine  judgment  on 
the  increasing  hardness  of  Judaism,  and  the  Divine  intention  to  bestow 
salvation  on  the  heathen  in  their  stead ;  and  if  he  felt  himself  more  and 
more  called  to  be  an  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  yet  he  could  not  persuade 
the  heathen  who  had  become  believers  to  accept  circumcision  and  the 
law,  i.e.  to  become  Jews.  If  the  labour  among  the  heathen  thus  enjoined 
on  him  obliged  him  somewhat  to  relax  the  rigour  of  his  Pharisaic  fulfil- 
ment of  the  law,  like  Peter  in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  he  looked  upon 
it  as  a  command  on  the  part  of  the  Lord  to  become  an  Avopot  to  the 
av6/j.ois,  in  order  to  win  them  to  the  faith  (1  Cor.  ix.  21),  even  if  he  had  not 
fully  developed  his  later  doctrine  of  the  essential  freedom  of  all  believers 
from  the  law. 


172  THE  APOSTLB  PAUL. 

to  them  by  their  Messiah,  just  as  the  proselytes  who  desired 
to  share  the  advantages  of  the  Israelitish  theocracy  had 
always  done.  This  demand  was  in  fact  made  by  members 
of  the  primitive  Church  at  Antioch,  but  was  decidedly 
rejected  by  Paul  and  Barnabas,  because  it  would  have 
brought  into  question  all  the  results  of  their  missionary 
labour,  so  that  a  violent  dispute  arose  on  the  subject  (Acts 
xv.  1).  In  this  dispute  it  was  made  evident  for  the  first 
time  that  notwithstanding  the  identity  of  the  faith  which 
Paul  preached  with  that  which  he  had  formerly  opposed 
(Gal.  i.  23),  the  form  of  his  evangelical  preaching  among  the 
heathen  differed  not  immaterially  from  that  of  the  primitive 
apostles.8  If  the  heathen  whom  he  had  won  to  the  faith 
and  received  into  the  Church  were  to  be  persuaded  to  adopt 
circumcision  and  the  law  before  they  could  attain  to  full 


*  There  can  be  no  question  that  we  have  here  to  do  with  an  antithesis 
between  justification  by  faith  and  by  works,  between  the  doctrine  of  a 
Beet  within  Judaism  and  a  universal  religion  of  the  world.  Even  accord- 
ing  to  the  primitive  apostolic  preaching  all  salvation  was  exclusively 
given  in  the  name  of  the  Messiah  (Acts  iv.  12),  who  died  for  the  sins  of 
the  people  and  was  raised  on  the  third  day  according  to  the  Scriptures 
(1  Cor.  xv.  8  f.).  Nor  had  they  any  doubt  that  this  salvation,  already 
present  in  the  forgiveness  of  sius  and  the  communication  of  the  Spirit, 
was  received  through  repentance  and  the  recognition  of  Jesus'  Messiah- 
ship  (Acts  ii.  88) ;  but  the  main  thing  for  them  was  still  the  completion 
of  the  Israelitish  theocracy,  which  the  returning  Messiah  was  to  bring 
about,  and  in  which  all  true  (i.e.  believing)  Israelites  who,  in  the  strength 
of  this  faith  had  served  Jehovah  truly  in  accordance  with  His  law, 
should  participate.  According  to  the  prophecy  of  Scripture  it  was  s.  If- 
evident  that  all  nations  should  finally  attach  themselves  to  the  completed 
theocracy  and  be  partakers  of  salvation  in  it.  On  the  other  hand  i'aul 
certainly  preached  the  sending  of  the  Messiah,  His  death  on  the  cross, 
and  His  resurrection  as  a  new  act  of  God's  favour,  by  which  He  purposed 
to  save  the  lost  world  of  sinners  and  bring  them  to  temporal  as  well  as 
eternal  salvation  Those  only  who  believed  and  trusted  in  His  grace 
could  partake  of  this  salvation,  as  soon  as  they  resolved  to  walk  in  a 
way  well-pleasing  to  Qod,  through  the  Spirit  imparted  to  them.  In  this 
gospel  as  he  preached  it  among  the  Gentiles,  the  law  of  Israel  and  the 
hope  of  the  completion  of  their  national  theocracy  had  certainly  no 
place. 


PAUL  AND  THE  PEIMITIVE  APOSTLES.     173 

participation  in  the  Christian  salvation,  his  preaching  had 
fallen  short  of  its  aim,  it  had  been  in  vain,  since  it  was  very 
doubtful  whether  the  Gentiles  gained  over  to  believe  in  the 
Messiah  would  submit  to  this  condition.  Paul  could  only  look 
on  those  who  made  such  a  demand  as  false  brethren,  who 
having  no  claim  to  Christian  brotherhood  had  forced  them- 
selves into  the  Church  at  Antioch  in  an  unauthorized  way 
(Gal.  ii.  4  :  7rapet<ra/fTot  i/reuSaSeA^oi  —  irapfi<rf)\0ov),  and  was 
persuaded  that  neither  the  primitive  Church  as  such,  nor  its 
rulers  shared  this  view.  In  order  therefore  to  prevent  the 
Gentile  Christians  from  being  disturbed  on  this  point,  he 
determined  to  go  to  Jerusalem  and  there  to  challenge  a 
decision  in  the  matter  that  should  put  an  end  to  the  strife 
(ii.  2).  The  Church  at  Antioch  also  recognised  this  neces- 
sity ;  hence  followed  the  proceedings  in  Jerusalem,  whither 
Paul  and  Barnabas  repaired  with  other  associates  (Gal.  ii.  1, 
Acts  xv.  2  ff.). 

After  the  example  of  Tertullian  (contra  Marcion,  1,  20)  and  Eusebius, 
earlier  writers,  as  Calvin,  Bertholdt,  Niemeyer  (de  Temp,  quo  Ep.  ad  Gal. 
conscr.  sit,  Gott.,  1827),  Guericke  in  his  Beitrage,  Bottger,  and  last  of 
all  Stolting  (Beitrage  z.  Exeg.  der  Paul.  Briefe,  Gott.,  1869),  Caspar! 
(Geogr.  cJironol.  Einl.  in  das  Leben  Jesu,  Hamb ,  1869)  looked  upon 
the  journey  mentioned  in  Gal.  ii.  1  as  the  second  recorded  in  the 
Acts  (xi.  30,  xii.  15,  comp.  §  13,  4),  although  according  to  the  trans- 
actions in  Gal.  ii.  the  question  of  circumcision  could  not  have  come  up 
at  all,  since  Acts  xv.  and  the  chronological  statement  of  Paul  make 
this  entirely  impossible.  The  fourteen  years  can  neither  be  reckoned 
from  his  conversion,  nor  properly  from  the  first  Jerusalem  journey,  but 
in  accordance  with  the  context  only  from  the  beginning  of  his  inde- 
pendent preaching  of  the  gospel  (i.  23  f.),  which  likewise  coincides 
with  his  first  appearance  in  Damascus  and  Jerusalem,  and  therefore, 
according  to  the  usual  reckoning  (§  13,  3)  with  the  year  38 ;  so  that 
these  occurrences  took  place  aboiit  62.  On  the  other  hand,  Wieseler 
(comp.  his  Comm.  zum  Galaterbrief,  Gott.,  1859),  after  the  example  of 
certain  predecessors  such  as  Till,  Credner  and  Kohler  (Versuch  fiber  die 
Abfassungszeit  der  apostol.  Schriftert,  Leipz  ,  1830),  has  identified  Gal. 
ii.  1  with  the  journey  in  Acts  xviii.  22,  in  which  Paul  discussed  with 
the  primitive  apostles  the  meaning  of  the  apostolic  decree  of  Acts 
xv. ;  which  is  completely  at  variance  with  Paul's  utterances  respecting 


174  THE   APOSTLE  PAUL. 

the  negotiations  at  Jerusalem.  Most  expositors,  however,  rightly 
maintain  that  Acts  XT.  is  intended  to  give  an  account  of  the  negotiations 
mentioned  in  Oal.  ii.,  and  if  it  be  true  that  irreconcilable  difference* 
exist  between  the  two  accounts,  as  the  Tubingen  school  professes  to 
have  discovered,  it  would  not  follow  that  the  Acts  bad  given  an  unhistorical 
account  of  these  in  the  interest  of  a  tendency,  but  that  the  source 
evidently  nsed  by  them  (§  50,  3)  recorded  other  negotiations  at  Jerusalem 
in  which  it  does  not  appear  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  concerned, 
and  that  it  was  only  by  an  error  that  they  identified  them  with  those 
in  Gal.  ii.  But  the  former  alleged  differences  are  sufficiently  explained 
if  we  consider  that  Paul's  sole  object  was  to  prove  that  the  gospel  he 
had  already  preached  for  fourteen  years  was  fully  recognised  by  the 
primitive  Church  and  its  authorities,  while  the  account  of  the  Acts  is 
concerned  only  with  the  recognition  of  the  freedom  of  the  Gentile 
Christians  from  the  law,  and  consequently  of  the  Pauline  Gentile  mission 
as  such.* 

4.  It  is  certain  that  when  Paul  laid  his  (free)  gospel 
before  the  authorities  in  Jerusalem,  they  added  nothing 
to  it  (Gal.  ii.  2-6),  i.e.  they  did  not  require  that  the  gospel 
he  preached  to  the  Gentiles  should,  besides  the  sole  con- 
dition of  faith  which  he  laid  down,  impose  Judaism  on 

*  Hence  Paul  gives  prominence  to  the  fact  that  he  resolved  to  submit 
his  gospel  preached  among  the  Gentiles  to  examination  at  Jerusalem, 
not  because  there  was  any  necessity  to  do  so,  but  because  of  a  Divine 
revelation  ;  while  the  Acts  lay  stress  on  the  circumstance  that  the  Church 
at  Antioch  sent  him  and  Barnabas  to  Jerusalem  in  order  to  settle  the 
dispute  about  the  circumcision  of  the  Gentile  Christians.  But  nothing 
is  more  natural  than  that  Paul  should  have  challenged  or  accepted  the 
resolution  of  the  Church,  in  consequence  of  that  very  revelation,  which 
convinced  him  of  the  necessity  of  such  a  step  under  the  circumstances. 
In  any  case  he  went  up,  according  to  his  own  representation,  with 
Barnabas  and  at  least  one  other  companion;  he,  too,  certainly  dis- 
tinguishes from  the  separate  transactions  with  the  authorities  of  the 
Church,  which  essentially  concerned  their  common  activity  (ii.  2,  6-10), 
the  proceeding  with  the  whole  Church  in  which,  without  doubt,  accord- 
ing to  ii.  3-5,  the  freedom  of  Gentile  Christians  from  the  law,  which 
formed  the  chief  peculiarity  of  his  gospel,  came  up  for  discussion,  as  the 
dispute  relative  to  the  circumcision  of  Titus  shows.  But  while  it  was 
the  Apostle's  exclusive  aim  to  show  by  this  example  how  fully  his  gospel, 
which  set  the  Gentiles  free  from  the  law,  was  recognised  in  Jerusalem, 
the  Acts  chiefly  treat  of  the  transactions  by  which  the  deliverance  of 
the  Gentile  Christians  from  the  law  was  arrived  at. 


PAUL  AND  THE   PBlMlTIVE  APOSTLES.  175 

them  as  a  condition  of  participation  in  salvation.  To  the 
position  they  thus  took  up  in  favour  of  the  freedom  of  the 
Gentile  Christians  from  the  law,  Paul  must  have  been  in- 
debted for  the  fact  that  Titus  too  was  not  compelled  to  be 
circumcised  (ii.  3).  But  since  he  brings  this  forward  as 
utterly  refuting  the  idea  that  either  the  primitive  Church  or 
its  authorities  were  of  opinion  that  he  had  not  by  his  preach- 
ing effectually  attained  his  object  of  mediating  salvation  to 
the  Gentiles,  it  follows  that  even  the  primitive  Church  con- 
ceded the  principle  of  the  freedom  of  the  Gentile  Christians, 
though  disposed  in  the  particular  case  of  Titus  to  insist  on 
circumcision.1  But  the  fact  that  they  did  not  enforce  it 
against  the  refusal  of  the  Apostle,  can  only  have  been  due  to 
the  influence  of  their  rulers.  Moreover  the  Pauline  account 
does  not  preclude  the  possible  existence,  even  in  Jerusalem, 
of  a  Pharisaic- minded  party  who  required  that  the  Gentile 
Christians  should  adopt  the  law  and  circumcision;  nor  the 
supposition  that  it  was  only  after  lengthened  negotiations 

1  Paul  indicates  as  clearly  as  possible  that  where  Titus  was  concerned, 
the  strangeness  lay  in  the  circumstance  that  he,  an  uncircumcised  Greek, 
should  nevertheless  be  the  companion  of  Paul  who,  as  a  circumcised 
Jew,  must  necessarily  by  daily  intercourse  with  such  a  on*  be  contamin- 
ated (Gal.  ii.  3).  This  was  a  case  in  which  Paul  could  unquestionably 
have  yielded  to  the  demand  for  his  circumcision,  in  order  to  avoid  giving 
offence  to  his  brethren  in  Jerusalem,  whose  legality  was  so  scrupulous. 
He  also  expressly  states  that  he  did  not  withstand  this  demand  from 
principle  but  on  the  ground  of  expediency,  for  the  sake  of  false  brethren 
who  had  already  come  to  Antioch  in  order,  by  spying  out  some  doubtful 
consequences  of  the  freedom  of  the  Gentile  Christians,  to  bring  about 
their  bondage  to  the  law  (ii.  14) ,  and  who  manifestly  only  make  use  of 
the  contamination  of  Paul  by  his  uncircumcised  companion  in  order  by 
this  case  to  create  a  prejudice  in  favour  of  the  necessary  circumcision  of 
the  Gentile  Christians,  to  which  they  might  afterwards  make  universal 
appeal.  Paul  expressly  says  that  he  did  not  give  way  to  the  demand 
made  by  them,  lest  he  should  prejudice  the  truth  of  his  free  gospel  (ii.  5). 
But  it  is  equally  at  variance  with  the  sense  and  the  wording  of  the 
Pauline  account  to  assume  that  with  regard  to  this  special  question,  or 
even  the  question  of  circumcision  generally,  matters  had  come  to  an 
irreconcilable  difference  between  Paul  and  the  primitive  Church;  whereas 
Paul  had  only  repelled  the  constraint  put  upon  him. 


176  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

on  the  subject,  and  after  Peter  and  James  had  fully  explained 
their  opposite  wish,  that  this  requisition  was  definitely  re- 
jected by  the  collective  Church  (Acts  xv.  5-21) -1  On  the 
other  hand  the  determination,  in  accordance  with  the  wish 
of  James,  to  impose  on  the  Gentiles  abstinence  from  flesh 
offered  to  idols,  fornication,  blood  and  things  strangled,  had 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  principle  of  the  question 
as  to  the  freedom  of  the  Gentile  Christians  from  the  law, 
since  this  injunction  had  direct  reference  to  the  synagogue 
(Acts  xv.  20  f.);  inasmuch  as  it  would  have  been  an  in- 
superable obstacle  to  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  of  the 
Diaspora,  if  they  saw  the  formation  of  Churches  of  believers, 
who  defiled  themselves  with  abominations  that  were  pecu- 
liarly heathen,  and  with  whom,  from  very  horror  of  these 
abominations,  they  could  have  had  no  community  of  faith. 
Hence  it  follows  that  the  reiterated  assertion  that  such  a 
decree  was  directly  at  variance  with  Paul's  statement  that 
the  primitive  apostles  added  nothing  to  his  gospel  (Gal. 

1  The  judgment  with  respect  to  the  historical  character  of  the  pro- 
ceedings set  forth  in  the  Acts  depends  essentially  on  the  question  as  to 
whether  they  are  taken  from  an  earlier  source,  which  is  undoubtedly 
shown  to  be  highly  probable  on  literary  and  critical  grounds  (comp. 
§  50, 3).  The  difference  which  is  obviously  prominent  in  the  apprehension 
of  the  question  between  Peter  and  James  in  spite  of  the  agreement  in 
result,  creates  a  favourable  presumption  in  its  favour.  The  former,  it 
is  clear,  draws  the  conclusion  from  the  communication  of  the  Spirit 
to  Cornelius  that  the  Gentiles  are  by  faith  put  on  an  equality  with  the 
Jews  before  Qod,  so  far  as  they  might  attain  true  purity,  to  which 
circumcision  was  with  the  Jews  only  the  first  step,  and  therefore  that 
this  had  become  as  unnecessary  for  them  as  the  imposition  of  the  law, 
by  the  ever  imperfect  fulfilment  of  which  even  those  of  the  Jews  who 
trusted  in  the  grace  of  their  Messiah  did  not  hope  to  be  delivered  (XT. 
7-10).  On  the  other  hand  James  is  satisfied  with  asserting  that  God 
had  called  to  Himself,  according  to  prophecy,  a  new  people  from  among 
the  Gentiles,  that  should  likewise  be  called  by  His  name  and  should 
serve  Him,  bat  who  were  not  to  be  burdened  with  the  ordinances  given 
to  God's  ancient  people  (Acts  xv.  14-19).  Prejudice  alone  can  deny  that 
both  alike  are  far  removed  from  Paul's  position  that  the  Gentiles  as 
such  were  to  be  received  into  the  Church  (No.  3),  or  even  from  his  later 
principle  of  the  freedom  of  believers  from  the  law. 


PAUL  AND  THE  PBIMITIYE  APOSTLES.     177 

ii.  6),  i.e.  nothing  that  he  himself  had  not  declared  necessary 
for  salvation,  is  quite  untenable. 

The  idea  that  a  part  of  the  law,  instead  of  the  whole,  was  imposed  on 
the  Gentile  Christians,  is  ck  priori  quite  inconceivable,  since  the  law  is 
always  apprehended  as  an  inseparable  whole  (Matt.  v.  18 ;  Jas.  ii.  10 ; 
Gal.  iii.  10),  so  that  the  fulfilment  of  isolated  injunctions  cannot  absolve 
from  obedience  to  all  the  rest,  particularly  as  no  special  importance  is 
anywhere  in  the  law  attached  to  these  three  points.  Equally  untenable 
is  the  assumption  that  by  this  means  it  was  intended  to  place  the  Gen- 
tile Christians  in  relation  to  Jewish  Christians  in  the  position  of  prose* 
lytes  of  the  gate  (comp.  Bitschl,  Mangold,  aud  others),  viz.  by  imposing 
on  them  the  Noachio  commands  or  those  given  in  Lev.  xvii.  18,  since 
even  if  the  vopveta  be  referred  to  incest  or  the  forbidden  degrees  of  mar- 
riage, which  is  quite  an  arbitrary  explanation,  some  of  these  are  always 
more  strictly  forbidden  than  others.  The  obvious  explanation  of  the 
actual  resemblance  between  these  and  the  former  commands  is  that 
these  too  were  were  designed  to  remove  the  most  prominent  differences, 
such  as  arise  in  every  community.  Finally  it  is  by  no  means  at  variance 
with  the  reasons  assigned  by  James,  if  we  regard  this  as  the  beginning 
of  the  formation  of  a  Gentile-Christian  code  of  morals.  Just  as  the  eat- 
ing  of  flesh  offered  to  idols  was  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  defilement  by 
a  heathen  abomination,  a  view  shared  by  the  primitive  apostles  (comp. 
Apoo.  ii.  14,  20),  so  the  eating  of  blood  and  of  things  strangled  (in  which 
blood  still  remains)  was  a  heathen  offence  against  the  Holy  One,  since 
Jehovah  appointed  the  blood  of  animals  to  be  a  sacrifice  and  thus  conse- 
crated it.  But  fornication,  i.e.  sexual  intercourse  without  marriage,  was 
an  abomination  specifically  heathen,  inasmuch  as  it  was  not  among  the 
Gentiles  looked  at  from  a  moral  standpoint  as  with  the  Jews,  but  was 
regarded  as  a  complete  matter  of  indifference.  The  assumption  that 
the  Acts  only  intended  by  this  representation  to  give  apostolic  sanction 
to  a  Christian  custom  that  originated  much  later,  appeals  in  vain  to 
the  silence  of  the  Apostle  with  respect  to  the  so-called  apostolic  decree  in 
the  Epistles  to  the  Galatians  and  Corinthians ;  for  the  opponents  whom 
he  here  withstands  did  not  even  on  their  side  recognise  its  leading 
design,  since  they  required  the  Gentile  Christians  to  be  circumcised  and 
to  receive  the  law,  so  that  the  controversy  had  quite  left  its  former 
ground.  Equally  incorrect  is  the  view  that  Paul  published  the  decree 
in  his  Churches,  or  even  laboured  in  the  spirit  of  it.  He,  too,  naturally 
had  forbidden  fornication,  not  because  it  was  at  variance  with  the  Mosaic 
law  or  with  Jewish  customs,  but  on  the  ground  of  its  being  inconsistent 
with  the  true  Christian  life  which  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  With  respect 
to  the  flesh  offered  to  idols,  he  only  asked  consideration  for  the  weak 
Christian  brethren,  and  only  forbade  absolutely  all  participation  in  sacri- 
ficial meals.  He  makes  no  mention  whatever  of  the  eating  of  blood. 


178  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

From  this  it  only  follows  that  he  did  not  regard  this  requirement  from 
the  Gentile  Christians  as  the  condition  of  their  being  set  free  from  the 
law;  he  could  not  have  done  BO,  since  he  looked  upon  the  latter  aa 
established  «  priori;  nor  did  he  by  any  means  go  to  Jerusalem  in  order 
first  to  convince  himself  of  its  truth  or  to  have  it  settled  by  a  decree  of 
the  primitive  apostles,  but  in  order  to  protect  his  Gentile  Christians 
against  disturbance  on  the  part  of  those  Jews  who  were  zealous  for 
the  law,  by  means  of  a  decision  of  the  primitive  apostles  and  the 
primitive  Church  addressed  to  those  Church  circles  over  whom  they 
had  authority.  The  historical  motive  of  the  Jerusalem  decree  is  ex- 
pressly recognised  in  Acts  xv.  24,  and  this  itself  precludes  all  obligation 
on  the  part  of  Paul  with  respect  to  Churches  that  he  might  found  inde- 
pendently ;  but  since  he  no  longer  expected  the  immediate  conversion  of 
all  Israel,  he  did  not  regard  the  consideration  for  the  synagogue  de- 
manded by  the  primitive  apostles  as  necessary  in  his  case  (§  13,  6).* 

5.  Paul's  stipulations  with  the  authorities  in  Jerusalem 
respecting  their  future  work  were  just  as  important  for  him 
as  the  recognition  of  his  free  gospel  (Gal.  ii.  7-10).  They 
had  for  their  basis  a  recognition  on  the  part  of  the  primitive 
apostles  that  he  was  entrusted  with  the  gospel  of  the  uncir- 
cumcision,  to  which  they  could  add  nothing  (ii.  6),  just  as 
Peter  (as  admittedly  the  most  prominent  among  the  primitive 
apostles)  was  entrusted  with  that  of  the  circumcision.  More- 
over, as  appears  from  the  result,  Paul  was  authorised  to 
preach  as  an  apostle,  viz.  with  a  view,  as  he  supposed,  to  the 

'  How  far  the  Acts  are  sufficiently  clear  with  respect  to  these  historical 
relations  may  be  doubtful,  since  the  form  at  least  of  the  so-called  apos- 
tolic decree  naturally  belongs  to  them  alone  (corup.  §  50,  3) ;  but  it  is  by 
no  means  improbable  that  the  primitive  Church  desired  and  ventured  to 
expect  their  decree  to  be  followed  in  the  Churches  of  Syria  and  Cilicia, 
which  had  been  mainly  derived  from  that  Church  (xv.  23).  It  is  even  pos- 
nible  that  the  original  apostles  expected  Paul  also  to  work  in  accordance 
with  their  resolutions,  but  the  Acts  do  not  assert  that  they  could  have  im- 
posed it  upon  him  as  obligatory;  rather  does  the  only  express  mention  of 
such  conformity  (xvi.  4 ;  comp.  §  15,  1,  note  3),  and  the  passage  xxi.  25, 
where  these  demands  upon  the  Gentile  Christians  (no  longer  indeed  in 
the  original  sense  of  xv.  20  f.)  appear  as  a  concession  on  their  part  to 
Jewish  zeal  for  the  law,  prove  the  contrary.  The  less  able  are  we  to 
conclude  with  Wei/.sacker  and  Grimm  from  this  passage,  that  a  decree 
of  the  primitive  Church  which  was  not  composed  till  afterwards,  is 
transferred  by  the  author  of  the  Acts  to  the  apostolic  convention. 


PAUL  AND  THE  PRIMITIVE  APOSTLES.     179 

founding  of  Churches  (ii.  7  f.).1  But  when  on  this  "basis 
the  authorities  of  the  primitive  Church  gave  their  hands 
to  him  and  Barnabas,  according  to  Paul's  express  statement 
as  a  symbol  of  fellowship  in  preaching  the  gospel,  a  work 
which  they  were  to  carry  on  among  the  Gentiles  as  the 
primitive  apostles  among  the  circumcision  (ii.  9),  both 
wording  and  context  absolutely  exclude  the  idea  that  the 
question  here  relates  to  a  separation  of  fields  of  labour  in 
order  to  prevent  dispute  respecting  insoluble  points  of  differ- 
ence, or  even  to  the  concession  of  an  activity  in  quite 
distinct  circles,  probably  accompanied  by  certain  reserva- 
tions, which  moreover  could  not  have  been  hindered  ;  the 
question  relates  rather  to  the  dividing  of  common  work  in 
accordance  with  clear  intimations  of  God.  But  if  already 
existing  facts  had  made  it  clear  to  the  primitive  apostles 
that  God  had  now  called  the  heathen  to  be  partakers  of  the 
Messianic  salvation,  these  very  facts  must  have  led  them  to 
perceive  that  in  the  apostle  Paul,  God  had  chosen  a  peculiar 
instrument  for  the  Gentile  mission,  so  that  they  might  carry 
on  the  mission  in  Israel  themselves  ;  for  until  the  hope  of  the 
conversion  of  all  Israel  was  abandoned,  this  was  their  first 
and  most  urgent  duty.  From  the  importance  of  this  com- 
pact, it  is  self-evident  that  the  division  of  labour  was  not 
understood  in  a  geographical  but  in  an  ethnographical  sense, 
and  that  it  only  applied  to  the  assumption  of  an  obligation, 
but  not  to  the  marking  out  of  exclusive  rights.2  Hence  it 


1  The  fact  that  it  is  not  said  iv^py-ijffev  Kcd  1/j.ol  els  &iroffro\^v  ruv 
but  els  T&  t0vi},  naturally  does  not  prove  that  full  apostolic  calling  was 
not  granted  to  Paul,  since  the  latter  phrase  undoubtedly,  if  we  take  the 
context  into  contact,  is  more  fully  explained  in  the  sense  of  the  former, 
especially  as  what  the  primitive  apostles  perceived  was  grounded  in  the 
facts  of  Aw  consciousness.  Moreover  the  fact  that  he  is  named  only 
with  Barnabas  in  ii.  9  proves  nothing  at  all  ;  since  the  question  there 
turns  only  on  that  activity  among  the  Gentiles  which  the  latter  shared, 
and  from  which  the  specific  apostolic  preaching  that  put  Paul  on  a  par 
with  Peter,  was  by  this  very  circumstance  separated. 

3  Hereby  the  assumption  of  Mangold  that  the  primitive  apostles  may 


180  THE  APOSTLE   PAUL. 

is  perfectly  clear  that  the  sole  exception  introduced  is  the 
duty  to  remember  the  poor  in  the  Tre/HTo/xj;  (ii.  10).  While 
released  from  the  duty  of  co-operating  in  the  conversion  of 
Israel  as  such,  he  was  not  to  consider  himself  absolved  from 
care  for  the  bodily  necessities  of  his  brethren  according  to 
the  flesh,  to  which  however  he  had  fully  attended. 

6.  The  Jerusalem  decrees  presuppose  as  a  matter  of  course 
that  the  Jewish  Christians  were  to  remain  bound  to  the  law 
afterwards  as  before,  and  Paul,  according  to  Gal.  v.  3 ; 
1  Cor.  vii.  17  f.,  did  not  at  all  think  of  opposing  this  idea; 
since  the  freedom  which  he  claimed  for  himself  rested  solely 
upon  the  necessities  of  his  official  ministry  (1  Cor.  ix.  21). 
But  there  arose  in  mixed  Churches  the  great  difficulty,  that 

have  understood  the  arrangement  in  an  ethnographical  sense,  Paul  in  a 
geographical,  falls  away.  A  division  in  the  geographical  sense  could 
only  have  had  one  meaning,  if  the  question  had  to  do  with  a  peaceful 
separation  ;  and  it  would  have  shut  out  the  whole  Jewish  Diaspora  from 
the  primitive  apostles,  which,  however,  they  looked  upon  in  fact  as  their 
field  of  operation  (1  Cor.  ix.  5;  1  Pet.  i.  1,  v.  13 ;  Jas.  i.  1),  and  which, 
since  they  strove  after  the  conversion  of  Israel  as  a  nation,  they  could  by 
no  means  exclude  from  their  activity.  Still  less  could  Paul,  when  he  per- 
ceived the  Gentile  mission  to  be  his  peculiar  calling,  renounce  occasional 
activity  among  his  countrymen,  which  moreover  waa  called  forth  by 
ardent  love  for  his  own  people  (§  13,  3) ;  since  it  gave  him  among  the 
Diaspora  without,  a  natural  link  of  connection  with  his  Gei.lile  apostolic 
ministry  (§  13,  6,  note  1).  If  also  his  vocation  to  a  mission  among  the 
Gentiles  rested  upon  the  circumstance  that  according  to  the  counsel  of 
God,  the  people  of  Israel  were  now  hardened  by  their  perversity,  and  the 
gospel  taken  from  them  was  to  be  brought  to  the  Gentiles,  this  did  not  pre- 
clude the  necessity  of  testifying  to  the  first-called  nation  how  salvation 
was  prepared  for  them,  and  how  they  were  inexcusable  if  they  rejected 
it ;  but  in  any  case  the  object  was  to  save  what  could  still  be  saved.  With 
this  view  Paul  spoke  of  his  endeavour  to  gain  some  among  the  Jews 
by  the  greatest  possible  condescension  towards  them  (1  Cor.  iz.  20  f.), 
even  before  mentioning  his  similar  conduct  towards  the  Gentiles;  and 
in  Rom.  xi.  18  he  gave  prominence  to  the  idea  that  his  most  zealous 
efforts  in  the  Gentile  mission  had  always  in  view  the  gaining  of  some 
of  his  own  countrymen.  His  fundamental  principle  not  to  build  on 
a  fonndation  already  laid  (Bom.  xv.  20 ;  2  Cor.  x.  15  f.)  does  not  rest  on 
the  Jerusalem  proposal,  but  upon  his  view  of  the  specific  task  of  an 
np  stle  (§  13,  5). 


PAUL   AND   THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTLES.  181 

the  orthodox  Jew  dared  not  maintain  intercourse,  especially 
at  table,  with  the  uncircumcised  believer,  as  was  required  by 
Church  life  at  the  lovefeasts.1  There  could  indeed  be  no 
doubt  that  in  Paul's  case  duty  to  Christian  brotherly  fellow- 
ship, no  less  than  to  his  official  calling,  stood  higher  than 
duty  to  rules  of  life  that  had  formerly  been  sacred ;  even  if 
his  theory  of  the  essential  freedom  of  the  Christian  from  the 
law  had  still  been  far  from  complete.  Nor  had  Peter  any 
scruple  in  allowing  the  Gentile  Christian  brethren  fellow- 
ship at  table,  since  he  looked  upon  uncircumcised  believers 
as  purified  from  all  heathen  profanity  and  made  equal  by 
God  Himself  to  the  members  of  the  chosen  race  (Acts  xv. 
9) ;  and  he  carried  his  principles  into  practice  on  the  occasion 
of  a  visit  to  Antioch,  which  he  seems  to  have  made  soon 
after  the  transactions  at  Jerusalem.2  But  a  step  was  thus 
taken  towards  emancipation  from  orthodox  social  life, 
which  might  easily  lead  farther.  Peter's  conduct,  however, 
gave  offence  at  Jerusalem,  because  it  seemed  to  invalidate 
the  premisses  on  which  the  decrees  there  made  were  based. 
It  now  appeared  how  difficult  it  would  be  to  put  into 
practice  the  principle  on  which  James  had  conceded  the 
freedom  of  the  Gentile  Christians  from  the  law  (No.  4,  note 
2).  If  the  free  Gentiles,  as  a  newly-called  people  of  God, 
stood  side  by  side  with  the  former  people  of  God,  there  was 
no  reason  for  the  latter  to  give  up  any  legal  duty  for  the 
sake  of  fellowship  with  the  former.  This  standpoint  was 
taken  up  by  rives  euro  'laxw/Sov,  who  had  come  to  Antioch, 

1  This  case  had  not  come  under  consideration  at  Jerusalem,  because 
there  was  no  regular  council  held  there  to  decide  all  doubtful  questions, 
but  an  answer  was  simply  sought  to  a  concrete  question.    The  abstinence 
required  from  the  Gentile  Christians  was  by  no  means  imposed  on  them 
for  the  sake  of  fellowship  with  the  Jewish  Christian  brethren,  but  out  of 
consideration  for  the  synagogue,  i.e.  unbelieving  Judaism ;  such  absti- 
nence was  far  from  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  have  intercourse  at  table. 

2  Moreover,  this  corresponded  entirely  with  the  fulfilment  of  the  law 
as  taught  by  Christ,  for  He  too  placed  love  higher  than  all  ceremonial 
obligations. 


182  THE   APOSTLE   PAUL. 

and  who,  whether  expressly  sent  by  James  or  not,  certainly 
represented  his  view  in  this  matter;  and  Peter  was  weak 
enough  to  withdraw  from  the  Gentile  Christians,  contrary 
to  his  own  better  conviction,  rather  than  incur  the  odium 
of  a  want  of  fidelity  to  the  law.  He  must  have  done  this  so 
demonstratively  as  to  lead  Barnabas  and  the  whole  Jewish 
Christian  part  of  the  Church  into  similar  hypocrisy,  i.e.  to 
deny  their  former  approved  better  conviction.  The  offence 
justly  excited  in  the  Gentile  Christian  majority  of  the  Church 
was  so  great  that  Paul  felt  compelled  to  accuse  him  before 
the  whole  Church  of  direct  apostasy  from  evangelical  truth, 
and  to  censure  his  conduct  openly  (Gal.  ii.  11-14). 

The  statement  of  Paul  presnppo.ies  most  definitely  that  Peter,  in 
holding  communion  at  table  with  the  Gentiles,  followed  his  true  con- 
viction, which  he  denied  before  the  adherents  of  James,  from  fear  of 
man.  Nothing  but  sheer  caprice  can  assert  that  it  was  the  very  reverse, 
and  that  Peter  only  went  back  to  his  own  and  the  primitive  apostles' 
view  after  having  followed  an  inconsistent  practice  for  so  long  under  the 
imposing  influence  of  Paul  in  the  Church  at  Antioch.  Naturally,  the 
details  in  Gal.  ii.  14-21  cannot  be  intended  as  a  verbal  repetition  of 
what  Paul  said  to  Peter  at  that  time  ;  rather  do  they  throw  light  on  the 
question  from  a  doctrinal  point  of  view,  the  aspect  under  which  he 
treats  of  the  bondage  of  the  Gentile  Christians  to  the  law  throughout 
the  Galatian  Epistle.  But  nevertheless  the  concrete  reproaches  he 
made  against  Peter  at  that  time  stand  out  with  sufficient  clearness. 
Unquestionably  the  decisive  point  here  was  that  by  this  means  he  indi- 
rectly compelled  the  Gentiles  to  accept  the  law,  thus  depriving  them  of 
the  freedom  that  had  been  conceded  to  them  at  Jerusalem  (ii.  14) ;  for 
if  the  Jewish  Christians  refused  Christian  brotherhood  to  the  Gentiles 
on  account  of  their  heathen  mode  of  life,  there  was  no  alternative  for 
those  who  could  not  or  would  not  do  without  such  fellowship  but  on 
their  side  to  remove  the  hindrance  by  adopting  the  Jewish  mode  of  life. 
Thus  he  denied  the  conviction  he  had  himself  expressed  in  Jerusalem, 
viz.  that  the  Jewish  Christians  could  not  fulfil  the  law,  and  therefore 
hoped  to  be  saved  by  the  grace  of  the  Messiah  alone  (Acts  xv.  10  f . ; 
comp.  Gal.  ii.  15  f.).  It  is  making  Christ  the  minister  of  sin,  to  be 
led  by  this  faith  in  Him  to  regard  the  observance  of  the  law  as  no  longer 
necessary  to  salvation,  and  yet,  by  returning  to  a  strict  observance  of  it, 
to  condemn  the  former  free  position  with  respect  to  the  law,  adopted 
on  the  ground  of  such  faith,  as  a  sinful  transgression  of  it  (Gal.  ii. 


PAUL  AND  THE   PRIMITIVE   APOSTLES.  183 

17  f.).  As  to  the  rest,  the  way  in  which  Paul  argues  exclusively  from 
his  own  personal  experience,  shows  that  he  only  gives  expression  here  to 
the  fundamental  view  at  which  in  the  struggle  with  Judaism  he  had 
himself  arrived  as  the  definite  solution  of  the  ever-recurring  question 
of  the  law. 

It  was  this  occurrence  in  Antioch,  which,  as  the  pseudo- 
Clementines  show,  heretical  Jewish  Christianity  never  for- 
gave the  apostle  Paul,  and  which  made  it  his  most  implac- 
able enemy ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  gave  occasion  to  heretical 
Gnosis  to  reject  the  authority  of  the  primitive  apostles  and 
to  accuse  them  of  falsifying  the  gospel  (§  8,  5).  On  it  the 
Tubingen  school  based  their  view  of  the  fundamental  oppo- 
sition between  Paul  and  the  primitive  apostles,  which  led  to 
a  struggle  between  the  two  parties  that  filled  the  entire 
apostolic  period  and  was  never  settled  (§  3,  1).  Neverthe- 
less, it  only  completes  the  proof  of  the  exact  opposite,  which 
is  clearly  involved  in  the  Pauline  account  of  the  transactions 
in  Jerusalem.8  Nor  can  it  by  any  means  be  shown,  as  Hol- 
sten  recently  assumes,  that  a  reaction,  which  under  the 
leadership  of  James  changed  the  mild  Petrine  Jewish  Chris- 
tianity which  originally  characterized  the  primitive  Church 
into  a  Judaistic  contrast,  dates  from  the  dispute  at  Antioch, 
in  which  the  consequences  of  Paulinism  were  first  fully  and 
consciously  recognised. 

7.  Doubtless  the  primitive  apostles  on  their  part  adhered 

*  Not  only  the  manifest  assumption  here  made  that  Peter  was  at  one 
with  Paul  in  principle  on  the  question  respecting  the  freedom  of  the 
Gentile  Christians  from  the  law,  as  well  as  with  regard  to  the  priority  of 
brotherly  duty  over  obligation  to  the  ceremonial  law,  but  the  whole 
narrative  of  the  conflict  has  in  the  context  of  Gal.  ii.  only  one  meaning, 
if  it  is  Paul's  object  to  show  that  his  free  gospel  was  not  only  recognised 
by  the  primitive  apostles  (ii.  1-10),  but  was  in  case  of  necessity  upheld 
by  huu  in  opposition  to  them  (ii.  11-21).  If  indeed  he  meant  that  they 
separated  entirely  and  for  ever  on  the  occasion  of  this  proceeding  on 
his  part,  this  would  have  deprived  the  argument  contained  in  ii.  1-10  of 
all  meaning  and  value  ;  his  meaning  therefore  can  only  be  that  he  con- 
victed Peter  of  his  mistake  and  at  the  same  tune  obtained  his  renewed 
assent  to  the  gospel  of  freedom  from  the  law. 


184  THE  APOSTLE   PAUL. 

to  the  law,  till  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  made  its 
observance  impossible,  for  they  saw  in  this  event  a  Divine 
intimation  that  the  time  of  the  Old  Testament  law  was  past. 
On  the  other  hand,  Panl  by  degrees  attained  to  a  conviction 
founded  on  theoretical  amd  doctrinal  principles,  of  the  essen- 
tial freedom  of  the  believer  from  the  law ;  and  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  shows  that  the  perception  of  the  fact  that 
the  law  found  its  end  in  Christ,  could  be  theoretically  de- 
veloped even  in  primitive  apostolic  circles.  But  it  cannot 
be  proved  that  this  differing  conception  of  the  question  of 
law  ever  led  to  a  conflict  between  Paul  and  the  primitive 
apostles,  nor  that  the  latter  in  particular  ever  retracted 
their  recognition  of  the  freedom  of  the  Gentile  Christians 
from  the  law,  which  had  been  pronounced  in  the  Jerusalem 
transactions.  Just  as  Peter  and  James  differed,  so  too  was 
there  a  difference  within  the  primitive  Church,  as  to  how  far 
communion  with  Gentile  Christians  permitted  some  relaxa- 
tion of  legal  strictness ;  but  this  question  had  little  practical 
influence  on  the  primitive  Church,  since  those  only  who  had 
freer  views  in  the  matter  would  have  consented  to  labour  in 
such  fields  of  the  Diaspora  as  would  have  brought  them  into 
contact  with  heathen  already  converted.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  is  easily  conceivable  that  the  Pharisaic  party,  who  were 
subordinate  at  the  transactions  in  Jerusalem,  came  forward 
again  very  soon  with  their  pretensions,  and  endeavoured  to 
effect  a  transition  to  Judaism  in  the  case  of  the  newly-gained 
Gentile  Christians.  But  that  any  of  the  primitive  apostles, 
or  even  James,  favoured  their  agitations  cannot  be  shown. 
If  this  party  carried  on  the  struggle  against  Paul  in  his 
defence  of  the  freedom  of  his  Gentile  Christians,  so  far  as 
to  contest  his  apostolic  authority,  of  which  there  is  no  docu- 
mentary evidence  at  least  to  the  extent  generally  assumed, 
yet  we  have  not  the  slightest  indication  that  the  primitive 
apostles  ever  drew  back  from  the  compact  made  with  Paul 
at  Jerusalem,  or  that  they  ever  took  offence  at  the  Gentile 


PAUL  AS  A  FOUNDER  OP  CHURCHES.      185 

mission  of  the  Apostle  and  its  great  results,  not  to  speak 
of  disputing  his  apostolic  authority.  For  their  part  they  de- 
voted themselves,  afterwards  as  before,  to  the  mission  among 
Israel  exclusively,  whether  in  Palestine  or  the  Diaspora,  till 
the  increasing  obstinacy  of  the  nation,  which  was  confirmed 
by  the  judgment  of  God  in  the  year  70,  annihilated  every 
hope  of  the  conversion  of  all  Israel,  and  until  the  death  of 
the  Gentile  Apostle,  whose  vocation  was  from  God,  com- 
pelled them  to  enter  into  the  predestined  work  of  the  Gentile 
mission.  On  the  contrary,  Paul  himself,  in  the  very  heat 
of  controversy  with  the  Judaists,  recognised  the  primitive 
apostles  as  such  (Gal.  i.  17-19) ;  and  it  is  entirely  incorrect 
to  suppose  that  there  is  some  irony  in  his  designation  of 
them  as  ot  Soxowres  (ii.  2,  6,  9).  He  classes  himself  with 
them  quite  freely  (1  Cor.  iv.  9,  ix.  5,  xii.  28  f.),  em- 
phasizing the  identity  of  his  gospel  with  theirs  (xv.  3  f., 
11),  and  calling  himself  the  least  among  them  (xv.  8)  ;  that 
the  \nrep\iav  aTroo-ToXoi  (2  Cor.  xi.  5,  13,  xii.  11)  were  the 
primitive  apostles,  can  only  be  maintained  in  opposition  to 
the  clear  sense  and  connection  of  these  passages. 

•  With  the  whole  section,  and  in  particular  the  so-called  apostolic 
Council,  compare  the  latest  treatises  by  Lipsins,  art.  Apostelconvent  in 
Schenkel's  Bibellex.,  i.,  1869 ;  Pfleiderer,  Paulinismus,  Leipzig,  1873  ; 
Weizsacker,  das  Apostelconcil  (Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theol.,  1873,  1).  Keim, 
Aus  dem  Urchristenthum,  iv.,  Zurich,  1878 ;  Holsten,  das  Evang.  des 
Paulus,  Berlin,  1880  ;  Grimm,  der  Apostelconvent  (Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1880, 
3)  ;  F.  Zimmer,  Galaterbrief  und  Apostelgeschichte,  Hildburghansen, 
1882 ;  Pfleiderer,  der  Apostelconvent  (Jahrb.  f.  protest.  Theol.,  1883,  1) ; 
Eoltzmann,  der  Apostelconvent  (Hid.,  1882,  4 ;  1883,  2). 

§  15.    PAUL  AS  A  FOUNDER  OF  CHURCHES. 

1.  It  seems  to  have  been  soon  after  the  transactions  in 
Jerusalem  that  Paul  planned  a  visit  to  the  Churches  that 
had  been  founded  on  the  first  missionary  journey  (Acts  xv. 
36) -1  It  was  only  natural  that  he  should  ask  Barnabas, 

1  How  far  he  entertained  ulterior  plans  of  an  entirely  independent 


186  THE   APOSTLE   PAUL. 

with  whom  he  had  made  this  journey,  to  accompany  him. 
But  because  Barnabas  wished  to  take  his  cousin  Mark  with 
him  again,  who  had  proved  himself  on  the  former  journey  to 
be  untrustworthy,  Paul  fell  out  with  him,  and  allowed  the 
two  to  go  to  Cyprus  alone,  while  he  chose  Silas  (Silvan us), 
also  a  native  of  Jerusalem,  as  his  companion,  and  after 
having  visited  the  places  of  his  former  activity  in  Syria  and 
Cilicia,  repaired  with  him  to  the  Churches  in  Lycaonia 
(Acts  xv.  37-40). 

It  is  quite  an  error  on  the  part  of  the  Tubingen  school  to  suppose  that 
in  putting  forward  the  purely  personal  dispute  respecting  Mark,  the  Acts 
conceal  the  much  more  serious  motive  that  led  to  the  separation  from 
Barnabas,  consisting  in  differences  which  arose  at  Antioch  regarding 
fellowship  at  table  with  the  Gentile  Christians.  For  Barnabas,  like 
Peter  himself  (§  14,  6,  note  2),  must  at  that  time  have  been  convinced  by 
Paul;  and  the  mention  of  him  in  1  Cor.  iz.  6  implies  anything  but  an 
estrangement  in  principle.  According  to  Acts  xv.  22-32,  Silas  was  a 
prominent  member  of  the  primitive  Church,  and  with  Judas  Barsabas 
accompanied  Paul  and  Barnabas  when  they  carried  the  so-called 
apostolic  decree  to  Antioch.  But  since  the  writing  was  addressed  not 
merely  to  Antioch  but  also  to  Syria  and  Cilicia  generally,  it  can  only 
be  due  to  an  incorrect  inference  that  Lake,  in  ver.  33,  makes  the  two 
delegates  return  to  Jerusalem,  which  does  not  at  all  agree  with  ver.  40 ; 
for  which  reason  the  copyists  thought  it  necessary  to  interpolate  ver.  34. 
It  is  much  more  probable  that  Paul  himself  travelled  with  them  through 
Syria  and  Cilicia  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  the  apostolic  missive,  and 
only  asked  Silas  to  accompany  him  after  he  had  passed  over  the  Taurus 
into  Lycaonia,  while  Judas  returned  home.  Moreover,  since  it  is  im- 
possible to  understand  why  these  two  reliable  men  were  dispatched  with 
the  apostolic  letters,  as  if  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  mistrusted  in  Antioch, 
the  conjecture  forces  itself  on  the  mind  that  the  sending  of  these  two, 
so  expressly  made  prominent  and  yet  on  this  occasion  so  meaningless, 
is  an  erroneous  reminiscence  of  the  sending  of  the  TU^J  dn-4  'l<ur<4/3ov, 
Gal.  ii.  12,  which  did  not  take  place  until  later,  and  in  connection  with 


activity,  as  might  easily  be  conceived  after  the  recognition  just  obtained 
for  his  free  gospel  and  the  express  assignment  to  him  of  the  Gentile 
mission,  must  remain  uncertain.  Paul  seems  to  have  waited  in  expec- 
tation of  a  more  definite  Divine  intimation,  and  in  the  meantime,  by 
visiting  the  Churches  he  had  formerly  founded,  to  put  himself  in  the 
way  of  receiving  such  intimation. 


PAUL  AS  A  FOUNDER  OF  CHURCHES.      187 

the  apostolic  decree.  It  then  first  becomes  clear  that  Paul  had  come  to 
a  perfect  understanding,  not  only  with  Peter  and  Barnabas,  but  also 
with  the  messengers  of  the  primitive  Church,  and  as  a  sign  of  his  agree- 
ment with  them,  accompanied  them  through  Syria  and  Cilicia,  where 
it  was  their  wish  and  intention  to  arrange  matters  according  to  the 
apostolic  decree.2 

His  abode  in  the  Lycaonian  cities  was  of  decisive  import- 
ance  to  Paul,  from  the  fact,  that  he  found  in  Lystra  a  young 
man  who  must  have  been  already  converted  at  the  Apostle's 
first  coming,  since  in  1  Cor.  iv.  17  Paul  calls  him  his  spiritual 
child,  and  he  was  now  of  repute  in  all  places  even  as  far  as 
Iconium  on  account  of  his  Christian  life.  This  Timothy  was 
the  son  of  a  mixed  marriage,  and  had  been  piously  brought 
up  and  instructed  in  the  Scriptures  from  his  childhood,  by 
his  Jewish  mother  Eunice  and  his  grandmother  Lois  (2  Tim. 
i.  5,  iii.  15),  and  was  perhaps  brought  to  the  preacher  of  the 
gospel  by  those  who  were  already  converted  before  him  (iii. 
14).  By  the  voices  of  the  prophets  in  the  Church  he  was 
now  pointed  out  to  Paul  as  one  peculiarly  adapted  to  be  an 
apostolic  assistant  (1  Tim.  i.  18).  One  circumstance  only 
appeared  to  stand  in  the  way.  As  naturally  his  heathen 
father  had  not  caused  him  to  be  circumcised,  it  was  to  be 
feared  that  wherever  Paul  came,  the  Jews  would  take  offence 
at  his  living  in  such  close  fellowship  with  one  who  was  tin- 
circumcised,  just  as  offence  had  been  taken  in  Jerusalem  at 
his  intercourse  with  Titus  (Gal.  ii.  3).  Thus  at  the  very 
commencement  the  Jews  would  hold  back  from  his  own. 
ministry  and  that  of  his  assistant.  Therefore  he  had  him 
circumcised  (Acts  xvi.  1  ff.).8  How  important  to  the 

2  This  Silas  is  moreover  called  by  Paul,  and  in  1  Pet.  v.  12,  by  his 
full  Latin  name  Silvanus,  of  which  Silas  is  only  the  abbreviated  Greek 
form.  Many,  quite  without  reason,  have  tried  to  identify  him  with 
Titus  (comp.  Marker  in  the  Meininger  Gymnasialprogramm,  1864 ;  Graf, 
in  Heidenheim's  Deutscher  Vierteljahrsschrift,  1865  ;  and  again  recently 
Zimmer,  in  Luthardt's  Zeitschr.  f.  kirchl.  Wissenschaft,  1881,  4 ;  Seuf- 
fert,  in  the  Zeitschrift  /.  wiss.  Theol.,  1885,  3.  Against  Zimmer,  comp. 
Julicher,  Jahrb.  fur  protest.  Theol.,  1882,  3). 

The  Tubingen  school  indeed  asserts  that  this  must  be  unhistorical, 


THE   APOSTLE   PAUL. 

Apostle  was  the  finding  of  this  assistant,  may  be  seen  from 
the  solemn  act  in  which  Timothy  was  formally  dedicated  to 
the  office  of  evangelist  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Apostle  and  the  presbytery  of  his  Church  (1  Tim.  iv.  14 ; 
2  Tim.  i.  6).  In  the  fact  that  he  was  brought  to  him,  Paul 
manifestly  saw  an  intimation  that  the  time  to  unfold  a  new 
independent  missionary  activity  had  now  come,  since  Timo- 
thy was  not  to  accompany  him  on  a  single  journey,  like 
Silas,  of  whose  connection  with  the  Apostle  there  is  no 
further  mention,  but  was  to  be  his  constant  assistant  in  mis- 
sion work.  This  explains  the  reason  why  he  gave  up  the 
visitation  of  the  Pisidian  and  Pamphylian  Churches,  and 
repaired  forthwith  to  a  new  mission  field.* 

since  it  is  directly  at  variance  with  his  conduct  in  the  case  of  Titos ;  it 
overlooks  the  fact,  however,  that  Paul  there  expressly  declares  that  he 
refused  to  circumcise  Titus  only  on  account  of  the  false  brethren  (§  14, 
4,  note  1),  while  in  this  case  he  did  it  solely  on  behalf  of  his  ministry 
among  the  Jews,  which  is  quite  in  accord  with  the  principles  he  enun- 
ciates in  1  Cor.  ix.  20.  Moreover  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  he  made 
his  impending  journey  with  the  Jernsaiemite  Silas,  who  perhaps  himself 
had  some  scruple  as  to  such  constant  and  close  intercourse  with  one  who 
was  nncircurucised.  Paul,  who  invariably  demanded  consideration  for 
the  weak,  could  accommodate  himself  to  such  scruples  as  unhesitatingly 
as  he  refused  the  requirement  of  the  false  brethren,  who  wished  by  this 
means  to  create  a  precedent  for  their  unauthorized  claims  on  the  heathen. 
Keim,  Mangold,  and  even  Pfleiderer  have  declared  this  trait  to  be  IrV 
torical. 

4  Criticism  has  taken  peculiar  offence  at  the  circumstance  that  Paul, 
who  nowhere  else  mentions  the  apostolic  decree  (romp.  §  14,  4)  is  said  to 
have  formally  published  it  in  the  Lycaonian  Churches  (Acts  xvi.  4).  But 
it  is  overlooked  that  these  Churches  were  not  his  independent  mission 
field,  but  were  founded  in  a  journey  undertaken  with  Barnabas  by  order 
of  the  Church  at  Antioch  ;  and  that  when  Antioch  had  accepted  the 
resolutions  of  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem,  it  was  only  natural  to  introduce 
them  into  the  daughter  Churches  of  Antioch.  At  all  events,  nothing 
is  opposed  to  the  view  that  no  certain  historical  knowledge,  but  a 
presumption  on  the  part  of  the  Acts,  is  here  brought  forward.  The  con- 
jecture is  even  probable  in  connection  with  the  preceding  discussions 
that  this  notice  in  the  source  of  Luke,  which  is  partly  lost  here, 
referred  to  the  Churches  of  Syria  and  Cilicia  (xv.  40),  and  was  falsely 
transferred  to  the  Churches  of  Lycaonia. 


PAUL  AS  A  FOUNDEE  OF  CHUECHES.      189 

2.  From  the  account  of  the  Acts  as  to  the  ways  by  which 
the  Apostle  was  led  to  Troas,  where  the  true  object  of  his 
independent  activity  was  to  be  pointed  out  to  him  (Acts  xvi. 
6  f.),  it  appears  in  the  first  place  that  he  wished  to  begin 
his  work  again  as  an  apostle  in  Asia  Minor,  but  was  pre- 
vented by  the  Spirit.  This  is  expressly  stated  with  respect 
to  Asia  and  Bithynia,  districts  in  which,  according  to  1  Pet. 
i.  1,  there  must  have  been  Jewish- Christian  Churches  at 
that  time  ;  hence  the  intimation  of  the  Spirit  was  intended 
to  show  that  he  was  not  to  begin  his  work  here,  but  to  seek 
out  a  place  where  he  might  lay  the  first  foundation ;  for  he 
afterwards  expressly  puts  this  forward  as  his  apostolic  prin- 
ciple (comp.  §  14,  5,  note  2).  For  that  very  reason  he  was 
compelled  without  further  delay  to  travel  through  Phrygia 
that  belonged  to  Asia,  and  to  pass  by  Mysia  also  a  part  of 
the  same  country,  but  was  on  no  account  to  set  foot  in  Bithy- 
nia.1 It  is  remarkable,  however,  that  the  term  Si?}A.0ov,  used 
of  the  mere  passing  through,  is  also  applied  to  the  FoXa-riK^ 
Xwpa,  where  according  to  1  Pet.  i.  1  there  must  have  been 
Jewish  Churches  already,  and  yet  the  founding  refers  only  to 
the  province  of  Asia  to  which  Galatia  did  not  belong.  This 
can  only  be  explained  on  the  assumption  that  Galatia  was 
taken  on  the  journey,  though  without  any  intention  of  be- 
ginning a  ministry  in  that  place ;  and  yet  there  could  have 
been  no  word  of  any  hindrance,  since  Paul  did  actually  work 
there.  Moreover  we  learn  from  Gal.  iv.  13  that  it  was  sick- 
ness which  obliged  the  Apostle  to  make  a  longer  stay,  of 

1  Asia  is  here  the  Roman  province  to  which  Mysia,  Lydia,  Caria  and 
Phrygia  belonged.  That  Phrygia  is  here  distinguished  from  it,  as  is 
generally  assumed,  is  decidedly  incorrect,  since  the  very  fact  that  they 
went  through  Phrygia  without  beginning  any  operations  there,  is  owing 
to  the  circumstance  that  they  were  hindered  from  preaching  in  Asia. 
In  like  manner  their  passing  by  Mysia  IB  also  mentioned ;  and  this  too 
arose  from  the  same  hindrance.  The  alleged  narrower  use  of  the  term 
Asia  may  be  chiefly  founded  on  ii.  9,  and  this  perhaps  comes  from  the 
source  of  Luke,  where  a  single  part  of  the  province  of  Asia,  to  which 
many  of  those  present  belonged,  may  be  specially  named. 


190  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

which  he  availed  himself  to  preach  the  gospel.  Galatia  was 
indeed  large  enough  to  afford  abundant  opportunity  for 
preaching  in  places  where  the  Diaspora  mission  of  the 
primitive  Church  had  not  yet  laid  a  foundation  (comp.  §  1 4, 
2) ;  and  the  surprisingly  favourable  reception  he  met  with, 
which  years  after  he  still  recalled  with  deep  emotion  (Gal. 
iv.  14  f.),  must  have  influenced  him  not  to  stop  short  at 
the  town  in  which  he  had  first  been  detained,  but  to  carry 
the  blessing  of  the  gospel  to  others  also.  But  the  Acts  in 
xviii.  23  unquestionably  imply  that  the  Galatian  Churches 
were  already  founded  on  this  journey,  though  in  pursuance 
of  their  whole  plan  they  find  no  motive  for  recording  the 
fruit  of  his  activity  in  that  place,  since  they  do  not  recognise 
it  as  the  divinely  appointed  object  of  this  journey,  and  in 
fact  it  was  only  incidental. 


The  Galatians,  although  understanding  Greek  and  in  many  ways  in- 
fluenced by  Greek  culture,  were  by  no  means  Asiatics.  Whether  Jerome's 
statement  that  they  still  spoke  their  native  tongue  which  was  allied  to 
that  of  the  Treviri,  ought  not  to  be  modified,  has  been  recently  ques- 
tioned. They  were  descended  from  Celtic  tribes  who  coming  from  Gaul 
in  their  predatory  expeditions  had  visited  the  Thracian-Greek  peninsula. 
Some  had  thrown  themselves  into  Asia  Minor,  and,  after  varying  fortunes, 
had  there  founded  a  kingdom,  whose  last  king  favoured  by  the  Romans, 
extended  his  dominion  far  beyond  Galatia  proper  (Gallo-Greoia).  Even 
when  his  land  had  become  a  Roman  province  (26  A.D.),  they  still  retained 
their  division  into  the  three  tribes  of  the  Tectosagi,  TolistoLoii,  and 
Trocmi,  their  old  Celtio  constitution,  their  popular  representation,  and 
a  far-reaching  self-government.  The  old  Geltio  Nature  religion  amalga- 
mated more  or  less  with  Greek  myth  and  Roman  Caesar- worship.  The 
assumption  formerly  prevailing  that  the  Galatians  (or,  according  to 
Meyer,  at  least  the  tribe  of  the  Tectosagi),  were  of  German  origin,  is  still 
obstinately  defended  by  Wieseler  (Die  dfuttche  Nationalit&t  der  Kleinat. 
Gal.,  Giitersloh,  1877 ;  Zur  Geschichte  der  kl.  G.,  Greifswald,  1879),  but 
has  long  since  been  refuted  (Sieffert,  Gal.  und  seine  ertten  Christen- 
gemeinden,  Gotha,  1871 ;  W.  Grimm  and  Herzberg  in  den  Theol.  Stud.  u. 
Krit.,  of  1876  and  1878).  Those  who  suppose  that  the  Churches  of 
Lycaonia  (the  new  Galatians)  were  the  Galatian  Churches  to  which  Paul 
afterwards  wrote  ( j  13,  4,  note  3)  make  the  Apostle  here,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  travel  through  Galatia  proper  without  stopping. 


PAUL  AS  A  FOUNDER  OF  CHURCHES.     191 

Here,  on  the  soil  of  a  peculiar  nation,  Paul  unquestionably 
exercised  from  the  commencement  a  Gentile  apostolic  minis- 
try without  the  medium  of  any  synagogue ;  for,  after  what 
has  been  said  above,  he  certainly  would  not  have  preached 
in  one  of  the  larger  cities,  as  Pessinus  and  Ancyra,  where 
there  were  greater  Jewish  communities,  and  therefore  also 
conventicles,  whose  members  believed  in  the  Messiah.  The 
epistle,  in  which  a  trace  of  Jewish  elements  is  found  only 
in  iii.  26-28,  and  where  the  Church  as  such  is  constantly 
addressed  as  specifically  Gentile  Christian  (iv.  8  ff.,  v.  2, 
vi.  12)  shows  that  some  of  his  countrymen  had  been  con- 
verted quite  incidentally,  whose  views  were  free  enough  to 
admit  them  fully  into  the  Church  of  the  uncircumcised.2 

3.  Troas,  situated  a  little  south  of  the  mouth  of  the  Helles- 
pont, on  the  coast  of  the  district  of  Asia  Minor  bearing  the 
same  name,  was  built  by  Antigonus,  and  after  Augustus  was 
a  Roman  colony  of  considerable  extent.  Here  Paul  received 
the  Divine  intimation  which  led  him  over  into  Macedonia  ; 
here  too  a  Greek  physician  called  Luke  became  his  associate 
(Col.  iv.  14)  ;  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  sufferings  con- 
sequent on  the  sickness  Paul  had  in  Galatia  may  have  led  to 
his  acquaintance  with  him.  They  took  ship  immediately  to 
Neapolis,  a  small  harbour  on  the  Strymonian  Gulf,  which  at 
that  time  belonged  to  Thrace ;  and  the  Acts  appear  to  give 
express  prominence  to  the  fact  that  it  was  in  the  very  first 
city  of  the  district  of  Macedonia  they  entered,  that  they 
made  a  halt  (Acts  xvi.  9-12).  This  was  the  old  border- 
fortress  Philippi,  on  the  stream  Gangas,  under  whose  walls 

8  The  singular  view  of  Mynster,  Credner,  and  others,  that  the  Church 
consisted  merely  of  proselytes,  rests  on  a  false  explanation  of  iv.  9,  and 
appeals  in  vain  to  the  Apostle's  Old  Testament  proofs,  since  the  Old 
Testament  was  read  from  the  beginning  without  question  in  the  assem- 
blies of  the  Christians  for  worship  (iv.  21),  and  Jewish  Christian  agitators, 
•who  took  their  stand  upon  the  Old  Testament,  and  were  already  at  work  in 
the  Church.  Baur,  Hilgenfeld,  Holsten,  and  Hofmann  have  adopted  the 
view  that  the  Churches  were  exclusively  Gentile  Christian. 


192  THE  APOSTLE   PAUL. 

the  famous  battle  between  tbe  Roman  republicans  and  the 
heirs  of  Caesar  was  fought.  Through  Octavianus  it  received 
the  jits  Italicum,  and  became  a  KoX^vta,  from  which,  as  a 
centre,  mining  operations  in  the  gold  and  silver  pits  of  the 
neighbouring  Pangseus  were  successfully  carried  on.  There 
was  no  Jewish  population  here  worth  mentioning ;  they  had 
not  even  a  synagogue,  but  only  a  place  of  prayer  outside  the 
city,  by  the  river,  where  there  was  facility  for  the  sacred 
ablutions,  and  whither  women  almost  exclusively  seem  to 
have  resorted,  partly  Jewesses  married  to  Gentiles,  partly 
Gentile  women  who  had  embraced  the  faith  of  Israel.  But 
Paul  did  not  neglect  to  seek  out  this  place  on  the  Sabbath ; 
and  the  fruit  of  his  going  was  the  conversion  of  a  dealer  in 
purple  from  Thyatira,  called  Lydia,  who  opened  her  house 
to  the  missionaries,  and  thus  established  a  firm  centre  for 
the  mission  in  the  city  (xvi.  13  ff).  The  very  meagre 
account  in  the  Acts,  which  hasten  forward  to  the  cata- 
strophe, does  not  allow  ns  to  guess  how  long  Paul  worked 
here ;  and  yet,  to  judge  by  the  result,  it  cannot  have  been 
a  very  short  time,  for  he  succeeded  in  gaining  a  Church 
mainly  Gentile-Christian,  which  must  have  been  of  some 
importance.  This  Church  remained  bound  to  him  by  ties 
of  love  and  obedience,  so  that  he  calls  it  his  joy  and  crown 
(Phil.  i.  8,  ii.  12,  iv.  1).  It  must  also  have  been  a  wealthy 
Church ;  and  we  see  the  confidential  relation  towards  it  in 
which  the  Apostle  stood,  from  the  circumstance  that  he  not 
only  allowed  it  to  maintain  him,  but  afterwards  even  accepted 
frequent  help  from  it ;  for  from  the  first  this  Church  mani- 
fested great  zeal  for  the  mission  (i.  4,  iv.  10,  15  f. ;  comp. 
2  Cor.  xi.  8  f.).  The  incidental  mention  of  two  women,  as 
well  as  of  Bpaphroditus,  Clement,  and  others,  who  were 
there  his  associates  amid  toil  and  struggle  (ii.  25,  iv.  2  f.), 
also  points  to  a  longer  period  of  activity  on  his  part  in  the 
place.  It  was  only  by  an  incident  that  brought  him  into 
conflict  with  the  rulers  that  an  unforeseen  end  was  put  to 


PAUL  AS  A  FOUNDER  OF  CHURCHES.     193 

his  work.    Comp.  Schinz,  Die  christliche  Oemeinde  zu  PJiilippi, 
Zurich,  1833. 

The  Acts  speak  only  of  a  lew  days  that  preceded  Paul's  first  Sabbath 
visit  to  the  place  of  prayer,  and  of  many  days  in  which  the  damsel  with 
a  spirit  of  divination,  who,  as  appears,  first  met  him  on  a  later  visit, 
repeatedly  molested  the  Apostle  (xvi.  12,  18).  At  the  first  meeting  with 
her,  Luke  must  have  been  present  (xvi.  16),  but  no  trace  of  his  presence 
is  observable  any  more;  a  circumstance  which  obviously  explains  the 
complete  obscurity  respecting  the  extent  of  his  operations  there,  as  well 
as  the  scanty  account  of  their  true  purport.  The  expulsion  of  the  spirit 
of  divination  is  immediately  followed  by  proceedings  against  Paul  and 
Silas  on  the  part  of  those  in  whose  service  the  divining  damsel  was,  who 
accused  them  before  the  Roman  decemvirs  administering  justice  in  the 
colonial  city,  with  introducing  foreign  religious  customs.  According  to 
the  narrative  of  the  Acts,  these  latter,  urged  on  by  the  people,  had  them 
beaten  with  rods  and  thrown  into  prison,  where  they  were  thrust  into  the 
stocks ;  but  the  decemvirs  were  obliged  on  the  following  day,  when  Paul 
made  good  his  Roman  citizenship,  themselves  to  fetch  them  out  of  the 
prison,  and  they  desired  them  to  depart  out  of  the  city  (xvi.  19-40).* 

4.  Thessalonica,  the  chief  town  of  the  second  Macedonian 
district,  as  the  seat  of  the  Roman  prefect  and  a  favourite 
place  of  commerce  owing  to  its  position  on  the  Thermaic 
Gulf  and  the  great  Roman  military  road  (via  Egnatiana), 
was  the  most  important  city  of  the  whole  province.  Here 
too  there  was  a  large  Jewish  population,  who  had  their 
own  synagogue,  and  to  whom  therefore  Paul  first  turned 
when  he  came  hither  from  Philippi.  The  Acts  speak  only 
of  two  to  three  weeks'  work  among  them,  during  which  he 

3  The  catastrophe,  which  is  also  hinted  at  in  1  Thess.  ii.  2,  is  thus 
copiously  narrated  on  account  of  the  wonderful  conversion  of  the  jailer 
(xvi.  25-34),  which  however  has  no  influence  upon  the  course  of  events  ; 
and  the  entire  representation,  involved  in  so  much  obscurity,  shows  that 
Luke  was  certainly  no  longer  present  in  Philippi  during  this  catastrophe. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  reason  for  the  assumption  that  Timothy 
was  absent  because  he  was  not  affected  by  it ;  since  we  do  not  find  him 
co-operating  in  the  expulsion  of  demons,  or  otherwise  acting  indepen- 
dently. On  the  contrary,  it  is  incorrectly  supposed  that  he  remained 
behind  in  Philippi,  because  he  is  not  mentioned  at  the  departure  from 
it;  whereas  he  is  mentioned  again  in  xvii.  14,  where  he  was  obliged  to 
separate  for  the  first  time  from  Paul,  whom  he  had  accompanied  un- 
interruptedly since  leaving  Lystra. 


194  PAUL  IN  THESSALONIOA. 

preached  every  sabbath  in  the  synagogue ;  and  in  addition 
to  some  Jews,  converted  a  multitude  of  Greek  proselytes 
and  women  of  distinction  (xvii.  1-4).  Nevertheless  Paul 
must  have  worked  here  for  a  much  longer  time ;  and  after 
sufficiently  proving  the  unsusceptibility  of  his  countrymen, 
probably  turned  entirely  to  his  Gentile  mission.  He  had 
undertaken  work,  and  by  means  of  night-labour  supported 
himself,  though  scantily,  by  his  handicraft  (1  Thess.  ii.  9; 
2  Thess.  iii.  8),  so  that  he  had  repeatedly  to  receive  supplies 
from  Philippi  (Phil.  iv.  16)  ;  a  circumstance  which  led  to  a 
continued  abode  in  his  present  quarters.  Whilst  his  preach- 
ing in  the  synagogue,  as  related  in  the  Acts,  set  forth  the 
usual  Scripture  proof  of  the  Messiahship  of  Him  who  died 
and  rose  again,  his  first  epistle  gives  us  a  clear  picture  of  his 
specifically  apostolic  preaching  as  addressed  to  the  Gentiles 
there  (comp.  especially  1  Thess.  i.  9  f.).1  As  they  joyfully 
received  his  word  as  a  Divine  message  (i.  6,  ii.  13),  he  suc- 
ceeded in  gathering  an  important  Church,  not  mixed  (comp. 
Holsten,  Jahrb.  ftir  Protest.  Theolog.,  1876,  1),  but  Gentile 
Christian  (i.  9,  ii.  14),  consisting  mainly  of  small  traders 
and  mechanics  (iv.  6, 11),  and  which  had  already  its  special 
overseers  for  the  administration  of  external  affairs,  as  well  as 
for  the  discipline  and  direction  of  Church-life  (v.  12).  But 

1  The  often  repeated  conjecture  that  his  preaching  has  here  a  prevail- 
ing apocalyptic  character,  is  quite  chimerical.  It  was  natural  that  the 
Messianic  preaching  among  the  Gentiles  should  occupy  itself  not  with 
the  promised  future  of  salvation,  but  with  the  judgment  that  was  ex- 
pected to  accompany  it.  In  order  to  escape  this  the  heathen  were  ad- 
monished to  turn  from  idols  to  the  worship  of  the  living  and  true  Qod 
(i.  9),  to  serve  Him  according  to  the  precepts  of  the  Apostle  with  blame- 
less holiness,  to  which  end  God  hath  given  them  the  Holy  Spirit  at 
their  calling  (iv.  7  f.),  and  await  the  second  coming  of  Jesus  who  had 
been  raised  from  the  dead,  who  as  His  Son  would  deliver  believers  from 
the  wrath  to  come  (i.  10).  Though  we  certainly  have  here  all  the  main 
characteristics  of  the  Pauline  preaching,  since  even  the  effect  of  his 
teaching  is  traced  back  to  the  Divine  election  and  the  co-operation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  (i.  4  f.),  yet  it  is  a  very  significant  fact  that  all  the  richer 
theological  elements  of  his  developed  system  are  entirely  wanting. 


PAUL  AS  A  FOUNDER  OF  CHURCHES.      195 

even  after  the  founding  of  the  Church  he  still  worked  among 
them  for  a  long  time  (ii.  11  f.)  and  that  amid  much  op- 
position to  which  he  was  exposed  from  the  beginning  (ii.  2), 
just  as  they  too  had  to  suffer  constant  persecution  from 
their  countrymen  (ii.  6,  14,  iii.  4).  Of  all  this  the  Acts  tell 
nothing ;  their  only  object  is  to  show  how  the  fanaticism  of 
the  Jews,  who  persisted  in  their  unbelief  in  spite  of  all  the 
labour  bestowed  on  them  by  the  Apostle,  led  to  the  prema- 
ture ending  of  the  missionary  work.  Since,  happily,  they 
were  not  able  to  find  the  missionaries  themselves,  they 
dragged  their  host,  a  certain  Jason,  and  some  members  of 
the  Christian  Church  before  the  rulers  of  the  city,  and 
accused  them  of  harbouring  strangers  who  turned  the  whole 
world  upside  down  with  their  treasonable  preaching  of  the 
kingdom  of  Jesus.  The  officials,  however,  wisely  contented 
themselves  with  taking  bail  from  the  accused  that  no  revo- 
lutionary project  was  on  foot,  and  allowed  them  to  go  tin- 
harmed.  But  Paul  and  his  companions  deemed  it  advisable 
to  depart  by  night  (Acts  xvii.  5-10).  Comp.  Burgerhoudt, 
de  coetus  Christ.  Thess.  ortu  fatisque,  Lngd.  Bat.,  1825. 

5.  The  last  Macedonian  city  in  which  Paul  worked  was 
Beroea,  one  of  the  oldest  cities  of  the  country,  situated  on  the 
river  Astraeus,  in  a  fruitful  region  of  the  third  district.  It  was 
not  without  anxiety  for  the  young  and  still  nnconsolidated 
Church,  that  Paul  left  Thessalonica,  and  after  coming  hither, 
he  frequently  thought  of  returning  to  it ;  but  the  attitude 
of  his  enemies  there,  which  was  still  menacing,  made  it 
impossible  (1  Thess.  ii.  17  f.).  He  was  destined  to  learn  the 
persistent  character  of  fanaticism  soon  enough.  In  Beroea 
his  success  was  unexpectedly  great,  in  the  synagogue,  as  well 
as  among  Greek  men  and  women  even  of  the  higher  ranks. 
But  scarcely  had  news  of  this  reached  Thessalonica  when 
Jews  of  that  place  made  their  appearance  here  too,  with  the 
object  of  stirring  up  the  populace ;  and  Paul,  against  whom 
their  hatred  was  chiefly  directed,  was  compelled  to  make  for 


196  PAUL  IN  BERCEA. 

the  sea-coast  (on  the  Thermaic  Gulf)  with  all  possible  speed, 
in  order  by  taking  ship  to  escape  their  snares.  From  thence 
he  was  conducted  by  some  of  the  new  converts,  whose  zeal 
for  his  safety  is  vividly  portrayed  in  the  Acts,  to  Athens, 
availing  themselves  of  the  first  opportunity  by  ship,  because 
they  would  not  leave  him  till  they  had  made  sure  that  he 
was  safe  (Acts  xvii.  10-15).  In  Athens  Paul  first  set  foot 
on  the  soil  of  Greece  proper.  It  appears  that  he  had  not  in 
view  a  proper  mission  work  here,  but  only  desired  to  wait 
for  his  companions  who  had  been  left  behind  in  Bercea,  since 
it  was  only  by  the  opportunity  that  presented  itself  that  he 
had  been  brought  to  this  place.1  But  he  could  not  look  on 
at  the  abominable  idolatry  that  met  his  sight  in  numberless 
temples  and  altars;  and  without  neglecting  to  speak  to  Jews 
and  proselytes  in  the  synagogue  according  to  his  custom,  he 
daily  availed  himself  of  the  opportunity  to  offer  the  gospel 

1  The  reason  why  Silas  and  Timothy  remained  behind  in  Bercea  is 
not  quite  clear  (xvii.  14).  It  almost  appears  as  if  their  stay  was  merely 
intended  to  mask  the  flight  of  Panl  and  ensure  its  success.  The  Acts  at 
least  know  nothing  of  any  intimation  that  they  were  to  carry  on  the 
work  so  hopefully  begun  by  Paul ;  for  Paul  sends  them  a  summons  by 
his  returning  companions,  to  come  to  him  as  speedily  as  possible,  viz.  to 
Athens,  where  he  awaits  them  (xvii.  15  f.).  It  is  customary  to  infer 
from  1  Thess.  iii.  1  f.,  that  Timothy  at  leaat  did  actually  follow  him 
thither,  but  was  immediately  sent  back  by  him  to  Thessalonica,  in  order 
to  strengthen  the  Church,  respecting  which  he  still  suffered  great 
anxiety,  and  to  bring  him  news  of  it  (iii.  5).  But  the  words  do  not 
necessarily  imply  this,  since  Paul,  who  could  uo  longer  bear  this  anxiety, 
preferred  to  be  left  alone  in  Athens,  even  though,  renouncing  the  hope 
of  his  companion's  arrival,  he  sent  him  couuter  orders  to  Berua,  as  has 
been  recently  acknowledged  by  v.  Soden  (Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1883,  2).  More- 
over, since  1  Thess.  iii.  1  contains  no  intimation  of  the  presence  of 
Silas,  he  must  have  commanded  him  also  to  remain  in  Beixea,  in  contra- 
vention of  his  first  summons  (xvii.  15) ;  for  as  a  matter  of  fact  he  was 
first  joined  by  both  again  in  Corinth  (xviii.  5)  and  no  reason  is  assigned 
why  Silas  did  not  follow  that  first  command.  But  the  Acts  are  always 
imperfectly  acquainted  with  such  matters,  since  they  make  the  Apostle 
expect  both  in  Athens,  and  therefore  are  equally  ignorant  of  a  counter- 
mand of  the  order  given  in  xvii.  15,  and  of  Timothy's  being  sent  to 
Thessalonioa. 


PAUL  AS  A  POUNDEE  OP  CHURCHES.      197 

to  the  Gentiles  in  conversation  at  the  market-place.  Very- 
soon,  even  adherents  of  the  two  most  popular  and  numerous 
philosophical  schools  attached  themselves  to  the  new  philo- 
sopher, whose  preaching,  which  insisted  upon  a  new  manner 
of  life,  touched  their  interests  most  closely ;  and  the  novelty- 
seeking,  controversy-loving  multitude  were  desirous  to  hear 
him  deliver  a  public  discourse  on  the  Areopagus.  For  some 
time  he  gained  their  ear,  since  he  adapted  himself  adroitly 
to  their  views ;  but  when  he  began  to  speak  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ  they  derided  him ;  and  his  success  in  Athens 
appears  to  have  been  very  small  (Acts  xvii.  16-34)  .s 

6.  The  ancient  splendour  of  Corinth  had  fallen  into  wreck 
and  ruin  when  the  last  Grecian  power  had  been  overthrown 
by  the  Romans  under  Mummius  (146  B.C.)  ;  but  it  was  now 
almost  a  century  since  Julius  Caesar  had  begun  the  re- 
colonization  of  the  place  ;  and  new  Corinth,  which  had  been 

2  That  the  Athenian  discourse  neither  is  nor  is  meant  to  be  a  verbal 
report  follows  from  the  fact  that  Paul  was  alone  in  Athens,  according  to 
Acts  xvii.  16  as  well  as  1  Thess.  iii.  1,  and  none  of  his  companions  who 
could  have  written  it  from  recollection,  was  with  him.  If,  notwithstand- 
ing the  admitted  relative  want  of  success  of  the  discourse,  the  Acts  still 
make  it  representative  of  his  Gentile  preaching,  just  as  they  make  his 
discourse  at  Antioch  representative  of  his  preaching  there  (Acts  xiii.),  it 
follows  that  what  the  author  had  heard  of  it  and  endeavours  to  repro- 
duce in  a  free  way,  must  have  been  regarded  by  him  as  characteristic  of 
the  way  in  which  he  had  often  heard  it  repeated.  In  fact  here  too, 
after  preaching  the  one  true  God,  and  seeking  to  unite  their  historical 
and  human,  with  their  religious  consciousness,  he  calls  them  to  repent- 
ance in  prospect  of  the  impending  judgment,  as  well  as  to  faith  in  Jesus 
made  possible  to  all  by  His  resurrection  (comp.  No.  4,  note  1).  Among 
the  few  who  became  believers  in  Athens  there  were  a  member  of  the 
Areopagus,  Dionysius  by  name,  and  a  woman  named  Damans.  Whether 
the  isolation  in  which  he  found  himself,  or  anxiety  respecting  the 
Thessalonian  Church  paralysed  his  efficiency,  or  whether  he  regarded 
Athens  from  the  first  as  a  sphere  not  adapted  for  great  activity  and  only 
desired  to  wait  here  for  his  friends  before  going  farther,  we  do  not 
know.  In  the  latter  case  he  would  have  departed  as  soon  as  it  was 
decided  that  Timothy  should  go  to  Thessalonica  and  Silas  remain  in 
Beroea  (comp.  note  1),  and  would  now  for  the  first  time  have  set  out  for 
the  place  which  he  had  evidently  destined  from  the  beginning  to  be  the 
centre  of  his  mission  in  Hellas  proper. 


198  PAUL  IN  CORINTH. 

the  seat  of  the  proconsul  of  the  Roman  province  Achilla 
since  B.C.  27,  rapidly  sprang  up  again.  The  situation  of  the 
town  on  the  isthmus,  with  its  harbours  to  east  and  west, 
made  it  the  centre  of  the  world's  commerce,  while  the  fame 
of  the  Isthmian  games  and  the  mildness  of  the  climate 
attracted  a  stream  of  strangers  to  the  place,  thus  leading 
to  the  accumulation  of  great  wealth.  The  arts  and  sciences 
flourished  there,  the  fame  of  the  Corinthian  pillars  was 
worldwide,  but  so  too  was  that  of  the  luxury  and  corrupt 
morals  of  the  city,  whose  unchastity  had  become  a  proverb 
(Kopiv0ia£ccr0ai,  Kopiv6ia  Koprj).  In  the  temple  of  Aphrodite 
a  thousand  priestly  maidens  prostituted  themselves  in 
honour  of  the  goddess  ;  it  was  with  reference  to  the  life  and 
practices  he  here  saw  that  Paul  wrote  his  description  of 
heathenism  culminating  in  unnatural  lust  and  complete 
moral  indifferentism  (Rom.  i.  21-32).  When  Paul  came 
hither  he  at  once  made  arrangements  for  a  long  stay;  he 
sought  and  found  work  with  a  countryman  of  his  own  and 
a  fellow-tradesman,  a  Pontine  Jew  called  Aquila,  who  with 
Priscilla  his  wife  had  lately  come  hither  from  Italy,  after 
the  Jews  had  been  expelled  from  Rome  by  an  edict  of 
the  Emperor  Claudius  (Suet.,  Claud.,  25),  and  who  with  his 
whole  household  was  unquestionably  first  converted  by  the 
Apostle.  Here,  too,  he  began  his  ministry  in  the  synagogue, 
though  by  no  means  confining  himself  to  this ;  his  relation 
to  Judaism  appears,  however,  to  have  been  strained  from  the 
commencement  (1  Thess.  iii.  7),  his  activity  only  becoming 
more  intense  when  Silas  and  Timothy  arrived  and  the  latter 
relieved  him  in  a  great  measure  of  the  anxiety  he  felt  for  the 
Church  at  Thessalonica  by  the  accounts  he  brought  from  it. 
This  however  seems  to  have  at  once  raised  the  enmity  of  the 
Jews  against  him  to  its  highest  pitch,  so  that  matters  came  to 
an  entire  breach  with  the  synagogue.  As  Paul  had  formerly 
declared  in  Pisidian  Andioch,  so  too  here  he  is  said  to  have 
expressly  stated  that  he  must  hold  them  responsible  for 


PAUL  AS  A  FOUNDER  OF  CHUECHES.      199 

their  own  perdition,  since  he  was  now  compelled  to  turn  ex- 
clusively to  the  Gentiles.  He  left  the  synagogue  in  a  de- 
monstrative way,  and  for  his  headquarters  chose  the  neigh- 
bouring house  of  a  proselyte,  Titius  Justus  by  name.  But 
just  as  isolated  instances  of  success  had  formerly  not  failed 
him,  so  too  this  catastrophe  seems  to  have  resulted  in  a  split 
in  the  synagogue  itself ;  Crispus  the  chief  ruler  of  the  syna- 
gogue went  over  to  Christianity  with  his  whole  house,  and 
was  baptized  by  Paul  himself.  The  conversion  of  Ste- 
phanas, whom  Paul  calls  the  firstfruits  of  Achaia,  must  also 
belong  to  this  time,  since  the  earlier  converted  Jews  were 
strangers  there.  This  convert  afterwards,  with  his  house, 
took  a  zealous  interest  in  the  affairs  of  the  Church  (1  Cor. 
xvi.  15).  From  the  same  period  also  dates  the  conversion  of 
Caius,  with  whom  Paul  afterwards  was  accustomed  to  lodge 
when  he  visited  Corinth  (Rom.  xvi.  23)  ;  for  Paul  names  both 
among  those  whom  he  personally  baptized  (1  Cor.  i.  14,  16). 
The  Acts  trace  back  to  an  express  Divine  revelation  the  fact 
that  Paul  after  the  former  catastrophe  turned  with  new  joy 
entirely  to  the  Gentile  mission,  so  that  his  stay  in  Corinth 
extended  to  upwards  of  a  year  and  a  half  (Acts  xviii.  1-11). 
The  consequence  of  this  was  that  an  important  Church 
was  collected  here,  which  Paul  could  afterwards  address 
as  entirely  composed  of  Gentile  Christians  (1  Cor.  xii.  2), 
although  a  not  inconsiderable  minority  of  Jews  always  be- 
longed to  it.  It  consisted,  however,  almost  exclusively  of  the 
lower  orders  (1  Cor.  i.  26  ff.),1  though  individuals  of  higher 

1  This  has  been  often  attributed  to  the  fact  that  Paul,  discouraged  by 
the  small  success  of  his  Athenian  attempt  to  consort  with  Greek  philo- 
sophy, strove  after  a  particularly  simple  announcement  of  the  gospel, 
•which  had  no  power  to  attract  the  more  highly  cultivated  orders.  But 
the  leading  maxims  respecting  his  manner  of  preaching,  which  he 
develops  in  1  Cor.  ii.  1-5  and  according  to  which  he  refuses  on  principle 
to  deck  it  out  with  rhetoric  and  philosophy,  were  so  deeply  founded  hi 
his  conception  of  the  nature  and  operation  of  the  message  of  salvation, 
that  they  were  assuredly  not  the  fruit  of  isolated  experiences.  That  the 
gospel  remained  foolishness  to  the  cultivated  classes  at  Corinth,  who 


200  PAUL  IN  CORINTH. 

rank  were  certainly  not  wanting,  for  we  afterwards  hear  of 
the  chamberlain  Erastas  as  a  member  of  it  (Rom.  xvi.  23). 
For  this  reason  Paul  never  allowed  the  Church  to  support 
him,  but  lived  the  whole  time  on  the  proceeds  of  his  handi- 
craft and  on  assistance  sent  by  his  beloved  Philippiana 
(1  Cor.  ix.  18 ;  2  Cor.  xi.  7,  9 ;  Phil.  iy.  15). 

The  chronological  determination  of  the  one  and  a  half  yean  that  Paul 
laboured  in  Corinth  is  very  uncertain.  Suetonius  does  not  specify  the 
year  of  the  Jewish  edict,  and  whether  the  edict  of  the  year  52,  mentioned 
by  Tacitus  (Ann.,  12,  52),  is  the  same,  is  very  questionable.  But  even 
if  the  year  52  were  certain,  the  statement  that  Aquila  had  recently 
(trpQ<T<t>a.T(jjs)  come  to  Corinth  (Acts  xviii.  2)  still  leaves  considerable 
scope.  How  long  after  the  so-called  Apostolic  Council,  generally  put 
in  52  (§  14,  3),  Paul  departed  from  Antioch,  how  long  his  visitation 
journey  to  Syria,  Cicilia,  and  Lycaonia  occupied,  or  the  duration  of  his 
stay  in  Galatia,  Philippi,  and  Thessalonica,  we  have  no  data  to  deter- 
mine. The  usual  computation,  at  the  date  53-54,  is  therefore  quite 
uncertain,  although,  since  Claudius  died  in  54,  Paul's  arrival  in  Corinth 
cannot  be  brought  down  beyond  that  year. 

7.  The  ministry  of  Paul  in  Corinth  seems  also  to  have 
come  to  an  end,  indirectly  at  least,  by  the  agitations  against 
him  of  hostile  Jews.  It  was  probably  Sosthenes,  the  new 
chief  of  the  synagogue,  who  had  him  dragged  before  the 
tribunal  and  accused  of  spreading  a  religion  that  was  unlaw- 
ful. The  proconsul  at  that  time  was  Jun.  Amnrus  Gallio, 
brother  of  the  philosopher  Seneca,  who  extols  him  for  his 
benevolence.  He  dismissed  the  accusation  as  relating  solely 
to  disputed  questions  within  Judaism ;  and  the  disappointed 
(probably  Jewish)  multitude  made  the  chief  ruler  of  the 
synagogue  suffer  for  not  bringing  the  case  against  the  hated 
heretic  to  a  more  successful  issue.  The  incident,  however, 
appears  to  have  led  the  Apostle  to  leave  the  city  a  few  days 
after  (Acts  xviii.  12-17).  In  the  harbour  Cenchrea  he  took 
ship  for  Syria,  after  having  first  shorn  his  head  in  payment 

were  spoiled  by  their  rhetoricians  and  philosophers  (1  Cor.  i.  22  f.), 
was  neither  due  to  his  manner  of  preaching,  nor  could  his  preaching 
alter  it. 


PAUL  AS  AN  AUTHOR.  201 

of  a  vow  which  he  had  probably  made  in  case  God  gave 
him  a  blessing  in  his  Corinthian  mission  and  a  safe  return.1 
A  landing  was  made  at  Ephesus,  where  Aqnila  and  Priscilla 
were  left  behind,  and  where  Paul  too  remained  for  a  short 
time  and  began  to  preach  in  the  synagogue.  When  pressed 
to  remain  he  refused,  promising  only  to  come  again  with 
God's  help.  He  took  ship  to  Cesarea,  went  thence  on  a 
short  visit  to  Jerusalem,  and  came  back  to  Antioch,  which 
he  always  regarded  as  his  proper  head-quarters  (Acts  xviii. 
18-22)  .2  The  beginning  of  his  literary  activity  in  the  two 
Thessalonian  Epistles  belongs,  so  far  as  we  know,  to  his 
stay  at  Corinth. 

§  16.    PAUL  AS  AN  AUTHOR. 

1.  Subsequently  to  the  end  of  the  second  century,  thirteen 
Pauline  Epistles  have  been  handed  down  to  ns.    Respecting 

1  There  is  certainly  much  in  the  language  to  favour  the  reference  of 
Keipcyj,€i>os  in  Acts  xviii.  18  to  Aquila ;  but  in  reality  that  is  quite  im- 
possible, since  no  object  whatever  can  be  seen  for  mentioning  the  head- 
shaving  of  Aquila.     It  was  Paul  therefore  who  made  the  vow  to  let  his 
hair  grow  till  the  fulfilment  of  his  prayer  had  been  accomplished,  and 
now  on  taking  ship  without  hindrance  redeemed  his  vow.     It  is  an 
empty  assertion  that  this  truly  Jewish  act  of  piety  stands  in  contradic- 
tion to  his  doctrine  of  the  law,  since  private  vows  of  this  kind  were 
neither  prescribed,  nor  could  they  be  undertaken  as  a  thing  necessary  to 
salvation.     That  it  was  fabricated  in  order  to  put  the  legal  piety  of  Paul 
in  prominent  light,  is  excluded  by  the  way  in  which  it  is  presented,  which 
does  not  even  make  it  adequately  clear  that  Paul  is  referred  to. 

2  It  is  impossible  that  the  journey  to  Jerusalem,  referred  to  in  xviii.  22 
simply  with  dvafids,  can  have  been  invented  in  order  to  show  Paul's 
zeal  for  the  law  and  the  good  relation  in  which  he  stood  to  the  primitive 
Church,  for  in  that  case  it  would  have  been  more  clearly  set  forth  and 
more  fully  narrated.     That  it  was  a  journey  to  a  feast  for  which  he  thus 
shortened  his  stay  at  Ephesus  is  inferred  solely  from  the  clause  added 
in  xviii.  21,  which  is  a  palpable  interpolation,  according  to  xx.  16.     On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  obvious  that  he  accompanied  Silvanus  to  Jerusalem, 
whither  the  latter  naturally  returned  after  his  journey  had  been  accom- 
plished;   for  although  neither   Silvanus  nor  Timotheus  is  mentioned 
after  Acts  xviii.  5,  yet  it  is  certainly  taken  for  granted  that  both  accom- 
panied him  on  his  departure  from  Corinth. 


202  SUCCESSION  OP  PAUL'S  LETTERS. 

the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  opinion  has  always  been  divided, 
hence  it  requires  particular  examination.  The  Epistle  to 
Philemon  is  only  mentioned  incidentally  by  Tertullian,  but 
we  see  from  the  Peshito  and  the  Muratorian  Canon  that  the 
reason  of  its  not  being  quoted  like  the  others  is  simply  on 
account  of  the  unimportant  character  of  its  theological  con- 
tents (§  9,  4).  In  any  case,  the  three  Pastoral  Epistles  are 
wanting  in  the  earliest  concluded  collection  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles  by  Marcion  (§  8,  6)  ;  but  this  fact  has  no  impor- 
tance whatever  where  ecclesiastical  tradition  is  concerned, 
on  account  of  the  critical  and  eclectic  manner  of  the  Gnostic 
in  question.  It  is  a  manifest  error  to  suppose  that  the 
utterances  of  the  Muratorian  Canon  with  respect  to  these 
epistles  (more  correctly,  to  the  four  epistles  all  of  which 
were  addressed  to  separate  individuals)  contain  an  intima- 
tion that  their  genuineness  was  doubtful,  or  that  their 
acceptance  required  special  justification  (§  10,  2,  note  2). 
It  is  in  keeping  with  the  history  of  the  formation  of  the 
Canon,  that  before  Theophilus  and  Ireneens,  only  one  express 
citation  is  to  be  found  in  Athenagoras  (§  7,  7)  ;  and  if  the 
latter  be  an  eschatological  prediction  of  the  Apostle  taken 
from  1  Cor.,  the  only  express  citation  in  Theophilus  comes 
from  the  Pastoral  Epistles  themselves  (§  9,  4,  note  1).  Only 
Clement  of  Rome's  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  and 
Polycarp's  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  (§  6,  1)  are  specially 
mentioned  from  a  definite  motive.  Our  thirteen  epistles  are 
therefore  uniformly  attested  by  ecclesiastical  tradition.  We 
arrive  at  the  same  result  if  we  take  into  consideration  the 
literary  allusions  before  the  time  of  Ireneeus  which  attest 
the  existence  and  use  of  these  epistles.  Though  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  was  so  generally  known,  yet  the  use  of  it  is 
not  so  striking  as  we  should  expect  from  the  extent  and 
importance  of  its  contents.  On  the  other  hand,  the  first 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  seems  decidedly  to  have  been 
most  freely  used,  at  least  till  Justin,  while  of  the  second  wo 


PAUL  AS  AN  AUTHOR.  203 

find  only  the  weakest,  scantiest  and  latest  traces.  Even  the 
Galatian  Epistle  is  by  no  means  so  freely  used  as  to  take 
precedence  of  the  other  smaller  Paulines,  which  we  should 
naturally  not  expect  to  be  used  like  the  three  larger  ones ; 
but  it  is  certain,  at  least  in  the  time  before  Justin,  that  the 
Ephesian  Epistle  held  quite  a  subordinate  place  as  compared 
with  the  Colossian  Epistle  so  nearly  allied  to  it.  Even  the 
use  of  the  Philippian  Epistle,  although  it  begins  with 
Clement,  does  not  at  all  correspond  to  the  fact  that  it  is 
expressly  mentioned  by  Polycarp.  With  respect  to  the 
Thessalonian  Epistles,  we  find  far  more  numerous,  more 
important  and  more  certain  allusions  to  the  second.  Above 
all,  the  use  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  is  not  by  any  means  in 
keeping  with  the  assumption  that  they  are  less  certainly 
attested  by  tradition.  We  find  them  exercising  an  early  and 
widely  extended  influence  on  ecclesiastical  literature;  nor 
is  there  any  perceptible  difference  in  the  case  of  any  one 
in  frequency  of  usage,  which  is  about  proportioned  to  their 
length,  on  which  account  1  Timothy  has  a  certain  promi- 
nence. For  evidence  of  this  compare  §  6,  7 ;  vii.  4,  7.  It 
must  be  stated  in  the  most  definite  way  that  we  have  no 
data  in  tradition  for  the  criticism  of  the  Pauline  Epistles. 


The  Pauline  Epistles  first  appear  in  Marcion  as  a  closed  collection, 
of  whose  succession  we  may  now  treat  (§  8,  6).  In  his  list,  Gal.,  Cor. 
(2),  and  Romans  come  first,  then  follow  Thess.  (2),  Eph.,  Col.,  Phil., 
and  finally,  since  the  Pastoral  Epistles  are  wanting,  Philemon  as  the 
only  private  letter.  Although  the  first  four  and  the  second  five  stand 
respectively  in  chronological  order,  it  may  he  doubted  whether  this 
arrangement  is  intentional;  for,  since  the  Thessalonian  Epistles  are 
unquestionably  the  earliest,  the  first  four  and  the  second  five  would 
then  he  consciously  separated  as  two  distinct  categories  of  Pauline 
Epistles,  for  which  we  have  no  foundation  whatever  in  tradition.  The 
Muratorian  Canon  (§  10,  2)  also,  it  is  true,  gives  only  the  contents  of  the 
first  four  (in  this  order:  Cor.,  Gal.,  Rom.),  thus  separating  them  from 
the  rest  and  seeming  to  regard  them  as  the  most  important,  but  it  then 
proceeds  to  enumerate  the  Churches  to  which  Paul  wrote,  in  quite  a 
different  order  (Cor.,  Eph.,  Phil.,  Col.,  Gal.,  Thess.  Rom.).  Since  all 


204  LOST  AND   SUPPOSITITIOUS  LETTERS. 

attempts  to  prove  a  definite  succession  in  Tertnllian  are  vain  (J  9,  4, 
note  2),  we  ranst  look  for  this  first  in  the  Bible-manuscripts  that  were 
put  together  for  the  purpose  of  public  reading  in  the  Churches.  Bat  the 
earliest  of  these,  from  which  the  Peshitp  was  translated,  must  have  had 
the  same  order,  with  trifling  exceptions  (comp.  the  Cod.  Clarora.,  which 
still  puts  Col.  before  Phil.),  as  our  Greek  Codd.,  which  the  lints  of 
Athanasius,  Amphilochius  and  others  follow,  and  which  we  still  retain 
(Bom.,  Cor.,  Gal.,  Eph.,  Phil.,  Col.,  Thess.,  Tim.,  Tit.,  Philem.).  It  is 
conceivable  enough  tbat  the  Roman  Epistle  should  stand  first  among 
them,  but  that  the  rest  are  arranged  according  to  their  length,  as  Renss, 
Ewald  and  especially  Laurent  (N cutest.  Stud.,  Gotha,  1866)  assert,  is 
very  doubtful,  because  neither  the  position  of  Gal.  before  Eph.,  nor  the 
separation  of  the  contemporaneous  Eph.  and  Col.  by  Philippiaus  is 
explained  in  this  way.  We  cannot  give  any  certain  explanation  of  this 
order. 

2.  It  is  not  a  priori  very  probable  that  all  which  Paul  wrote 
has  been  preserved,  considering  the  great  dissimilarity  in 
the  spread  and  use  of  his  writings  perceptible  in  the  time 
preceding  Irenceus.  It  is  just  as  little  probable  that  a 
greater  number  of  more  important  epistles  has  been  lost. 
That  the  oldest  among  such  as  have  been  preserved  were 
also  in  reality  his  first  is  more  than  probable,  from  some 
intimations  which  they  contain  (1  Thess.  v.  27;  2  Thess  ii. 
15,  17  f .)  ;  and  it  is  only  certain  that  Paul's  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  mentioned  in  1  Cor.  v.  9,  and  the  Epistle  to  the 
Laodiceans  mentioned  in  Col.  iv.  16  have  been  lost. 

Doctrinal  bias  alone  can  dispute  the  fact  that  the  epistle  mentioned 
in  1  Cor.  v.  9  was  written  by  Paul  before  our  first  to  Corinth  (comp. 
J.  G.  Miiller,  de  tribui  Pauli  itineribui  Cor.  nuc.,  Basel,  1831,  and  also 
L.  Schulze) ;  and  it  is  an  entirely  untenable  hypothesis  that  it  has  been 
in  any  way  incorporated  with  our  Corinthian  Epistles,  even  f  ragmen - 
tarily.  On  the  contrary,  the  conjecture  that  an  epistle  was  written  by 
Paul  between  our  first  and  second  to  the  Corinthians  does  not  commend 
itself  to  us,  much  less  the  opinion  that  it  is  still  preserved  in  2  Cor. 
x.-xiii.  The  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  extant  in  Armenian, 
together  with  one  from  the  Corinthians  preceding  it  (ed.  Wilkins, 
Amsterd.,  1715;  comp.  Fabricins,  Cod.  apocr.  novi  test.,  ii.,  pp.  6C6 
ff.),  has  indeed  been  defended  by  Rinck  as  genuine  (da*  Sendschrei- 
ben  der  Kor.,  etc.,  Heidelberg,  1823),  but  is  unquestionably  a  fabrica- 
tion made  up  of  Pauline  phrases  (comp.  Ullmann  in  the  Heidelberg. 


PAUL  AS  AN  AUTHOB.  205 

Jalirb.,  1823,  6).  Nor  does  the  conjecture  that  the  epistle  mentioned 
in  Col.  iv.  16  is  contained  in  our  so-called  Ephesian  Epistle,  commend 
itself  to  us.  The  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Laodiceans  (Fabr.,  Cod.  apocr. 
novi  testamenti,  ii.,  p.  873 ;  comp.  Anger,  Ueber  den  Laodicenerbrief, 
Leipzig,  1873),  which  was  widely  spread  in  the  middle  ages  (§  12,  5, 
note  2),  is  a  flimsy  compilation  from  the  Colossian  and  Philippian 
Epistles.  On  the  other  hand  it  has  been  inferred,  but  without  the  least 
foundation,  from  Phil.  iii.  1,  that  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Philippians 
have  been  lost,  and  that  the  remains  of  a  more  copious  letter  to  the 
Ephesians  are  found  in  Bomans  xvi.  Jerome  (de  Vir.  III.,  12)  and 
Augustine  (Ep.  153,  ad  Placed.)  also  mention  a  correspondence  between 
Paul  and  Seneca  which  has  been  probably  fabricated  on  the  basis  of 
Acts  xviiL  12  (Fabr.,  Cod.  apocr.  novi  test.,  ii.,  pp.  892,  ff.  Comp. 
Gelpke,  de  familiaritate  qua  Paulo  cum  Seneca  phil.  inter/,  traditur, 
1813 ;  and  against  modern  French  defenders  of  it,  comp.  Baur,  Seneca 
und  Paulus,  in  the  Zeitschr.  f.  wiss.  Th.,  1858,  2). 

On  the  other  hand  the  question  suggests  itself,  whether 
the  thirteen  epistles,  most  of  which  were  only  attributed  to 
Paul  more  than  a  century  after  his  death,  do  actually  pro- 
ceed from  him.  "We  have  already  seen  how  improbable  it 
is  that  in  the  second  century,  at  a  time  when  the  authority 
of  the  apostles  was  not  yet  traced  back  to  their  written 
memorials,  a  great  number  of  epistles  should  have  been 
fathered  on  him  (§  7,  7).  It  is  not  impossible,  however, 
that  in  the  earlier  time  after  Paul's  death,  when  the  need 
of  apostolic  direction  or  encouragement  was  still  felt  in 
his  Churches,  some  of  his  pupils  may  have  addressed  the 
Churches  in  his  name,  as,  according  to  2  Thess.  ii.  2,  seems 
to  have  happened.  Criticism  was  first  directed  against  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  by  Eichhorn  and  de  Wette;  and  soon 
afterwards  against  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  and  the 
second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  in  particular.  The 
Tubingen  school,  following  Baur's  example,  rejected  all  the 
smaller  epistles,  excepting  the  four  great  doctrinal  and 
polemic  ones,  viz.  Romans  (with  the  exception  of  chaps. 
xv.  xvi.),  Corinthians,  and  Galatians.  But  a  reaction  arose 
within  the  school  itself,  and  1  Thess.,  Phil.,  and  Philem. 
were  again  assigned  to  the  Apostle,  even  the  Colossian 


206  PAULINE  EPISTLES  DICTATED. 

Epistle  being  wholly  or  partially  defended  by  those  who 
were  still  under  the  influence  of  the  school.  The  subversive 
criticism  of  Bruno  Bauer,  who  pronounced  all  the  Pauline 
Epistles  to  be  fabrications,  has  recently  found  new  followers 
among  the  Dutch  critics,  especially  Loman  (Kritik  der 
paulinischen  Brief e,  Berlin,  1850). 

3.  Paul  did  not  write  his  letters  with  his  own  hand,  but 
dictated  them.  In  Romans  xvi.  22,  one  Tertius,  his  aman- 
uensis, sends  greeting ;  and  the  way  in  which  he  expressly 
emphasizes  the  fact  (Philem.  19)  that  he  is  writing  with 
his  own  hand,  undoubtedly  shows  that  he  did  not  usually 
do  so.  The  most  natural  explanation  of  this  is  that  he 
was  unpractised  in  writing ;  for  his  hand,  which  was  more 
accustomed  to  manage  a  tool  than  a  pen,  could  only  form 
large  (and  probably  misshapen)  letters  (Gal.  vi.  11).  Much 
that  is  abrupt  and  incorrect  in  his  manner  of  writing  is 
most  naturally  explained  on  the  assumption  that  he  dictated. 
But  the  Apostle  early  felt  the  need  of  adding  something  in 
his  own  hand  to  the  dictated  epistle  (2  Thess.  iii.  17  f.), 
if  only  a  closing  benediction.  It  seems  to  have  been  the 
occurrence  (No.  2)  mentioned  in  ii.  2  that  led  him  to  put  a 
sign  of  attestation  to  the  epistle  written  by  a  strange  hand, 
and  he  then  made  the  resolve  to  do  this  in  future  with  all 
his  epistles.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  this  post- 
script  in  his  own  hand  became  a  most  striking  concluding 
warning  and  exhortation  (vi.  11-18).  In  the  first  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians  Paul  expressly  characterizes  the  conclud- 
ing words  as  written  with  his  own  hand  (xvi.  21-24),  and 
similarly  in  the  Colossian  Epistle  (iv.  18).  But  it  can 
hardly  be  doubted  that  he  did  the  same  in  other  Church- 
letters,  even  where  he  does  not  expressly  notify  it.1 

1  Bat  in  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  we  must  not  look  for 
each  a  postscript  in  his  own  hand ;  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  he 
oould  only  have  written  the  great  concluding  doxology  (xvi.  25-27), 
and  in  the  Ephesian  Epistle  the  entire  final  benediction  (vi.  23  f.).  In 


PAUL  AS  AN  AUTHOR.  207 

Oar  manuscripts  agree  on  the  whole  in  the  form  in  which  they  have 
preserved  the  Pauline  Epistles.  It  is  only  Weisse  (Beitrage  zur  Kritik 
der  paul.  Briefe,  ed.  Sulze,  Leipzig,  1867)  and  Hitzig  (Beitrage  zur 
Kritik  der  paul.  Briefe,  Leipzig,  1870)  who  have  endeavoured  to  point 
out  in  several  of  them  a  series  of  interpolations,  and  Holsten  seems 
inclined  to  follow  them  (Das  Evang.  des  Paulus,  Berlin,  1880) ;  Ewald, 
after  the  example  of  earlier  critics,  has  pronounced  the  paragraph 
2  Cor.  vi.  14-vii.  1  spurious ;  and  such  as  have  been  unwilh'ng  entirely 
to  reject  the  smaller  epistles,  have  at  least  held  that  they  were  inter- 
polated. Laurent  (NTl.  Stud.)  has  endeavoured  to  separate  a  series  of 
passages  as  later  marginal  remarks. 

4.  All  thirteen  epistles  begin  with  an  inscription,  in  which 
the  current  Greek  epistolary  introduction  (^aipeiv  or  ^atpeiv 
Ae'yei ;  comp.  Jas.  i.  1 ;  Acts  xxiii.  26)  is  expanded  into 
a  copious  benediction  which,  departing  from  the  proper 
address,  takes  the  form  of  an  independent  sentence.1  Paul 
here  speaks  of  himself  by  name,  but  in  the  Thessalonian 
Epistles  alone  without  some  addition;  in  his  only  private 
letter  he  calls  himself  Seoytios  Xp.  'Ii/tr.  (Philem.  1),  else- 
where generally  an  apostle,  and  with  unmistakeable  refer- 

the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  the  greetings  seem  to  have  been  written 
with  his  own  hand  (iv.  21-23)  before  the  final  benediction,  on  account 
of  the  &ft.-fiv  which  precedes  the  latter,  though  this  is  not  absolute  proof 
(comp.  Bom.  xv.  33) ;  so  too,  perhaps,  in  2  Cor.  xiii.  12  f.  Of  the 
letters  to  separate  individuals,  that  to  Philemon  is  most  plainly  stated 
to  have  been  written  with  his  own  hand  (19) ;  it  was  certainly  not  the 
case  with  the  rather  copious  Pastoral  Epistles.  In  the  first  Epistle 
to  Timothy  the  final  exhortation  (vi.  20  f.)  might  be  from  the  hand 
of  the  Apostle  as  in  Galatians,  and  the  same  thing  may  be  said  of 
the  greetings  with  the  benediction  in  the  second  (iv.  19-22),  as  well  as 
in  Philippians.  The  Epistle  to  Titus  affords  no  such  certain  ground  for 
the  assumption  of  a  postscript  in  his  own  hand,  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  he  did  not  write  it. 

1  This  is  done  by  the  x&P1*  ty"*  ical  flpfyi)  in  the  benediction,  and  the 
only  exception  to  it  is  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  where  such  repetition  of 
the  dative  is  wanting,  because  they  are  addressed  to  individuals,  whereas 
in  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  other  persons  besides  the  one  addressed  are 
named,  and  therefore  the  usual  x^-P^  ^v  (1-3)  follows.  It  is  arbi- 
trarily assumed  that  Paul  was  the  creator  of  this  epistolary  form.  It 
is  certainly  not  found  in  James  (oomp.  also  3  John  1),  but  appears 
in  Peter's  Epistles,  Jude  1  f.f  2  John  1-3,  and  above  all  in  the 
Apocalypse  i.  4. 


208  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  LETTEBS. 

ence  to  the  origin  of  his  apostleship,  even  gives  himself  this 
name  in  his  official  pastoral  letters  to  Timothy  and  Titus ; 
in  his  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  to  Titus  where  this 
designation  is  followed  by  an  exposition  of  the  nature  of 
his  apostleship,  referring  to  the  contents  of  the  epistle,  he 
begins  by  speaking  of  himself  in  a  more  general  way  as 
SovXos  Xp.  lifer,  or  ®eov  (Rom.  i.  1-5;  Tit.  i.  1-3).  The 
reason  why  in  the  Philippian  Epistle  he  styles  himself 
simply  SovXos  Xp.  'hyo-.,  is  that  he  there  associates  himself 
with  Timothy.  By  making  the  benediction  a  separate  thing, 
he  does  not,  however,  degrade  the  letter  to  a  mere  address, 
nor  characterize  himself  as  merely  the  writer  of  the  letter 
and  its  readers  as  the  recipients,  but  he  is  the  sender  of  the 
benediction  while  the  readers  are  its  recipients.  Hence  it 
is  that  in  this  benediction  he  frequently  joins  the  names  of 
friends  happening  to  be  with  him,  especially  Timothy,  and 
extends  it  to  others  besides  the  immediate  recipients.8  The 

*  The  person  named  along  with  him  in  the  inscription  cannot  be  the 
writer  of  the  epistle,  since  in  the  only  case  in  which  we  know  the  writer 
(No.  3),  he  is  not  named  in  the  inscription ;  nor  can  he  have  been 
associated  with  him  in  writing  it,  as  is  generally  assumed ;  this  is  quite 
conceivable  with  respect  to  the  Thessalonian  Epistles,  where  Silvanna 
and  Timotheus,  whom  Paul  named  along  with  himself,  were  associated 
with  him  in  founding  the  Church,  and  much  that  he  addresses  to  it  in 
the  plural,  may  have  been  said  in  their  joint  names  (comp.  Laurent, 
Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1861,  1) ;  but  even  here  he  often  speaks  of  himself  in 
the  first  person,  and  of  Timothy  in  the  third.  This  view  is  impossible 
in  the  case  of  the  Galatian  Epistle  where  he  emphasizes  his  apostolic 
authority  so  strongly,  and  says  so  much  that  is  purely  personal,  though 
naming  besides  himself  all  the  brethren  who  are  with  him  (i.  2).  It  is 
equally  inconceivable  of  the  Corinthian  Epistles,  in  the  first  of  which  he 
touches  upon  so  many  arrangements,  with  apostolio  authority,  and  yet 
along  with  himself  names  the  otherwise  unknown  Sosthenes ;  while  in 
the  second  he  names  Timothy  ;  but  he  treats  of  personal  relations  with 
such  personal  feeling,  that  to  associate  Timothy  with  himself  in  speak- 
ing of  these  things,  or  to  discuss  them  in  his  name,  is  without  meaning. 
In  the  Philippian  Epistle  he  not  only  speaks  of  Timothy  in  the  third 
person  and  says  flattering  things  of  him,  bat  says  so  much  of  his  own  sub- 
jective frame  of  mind  in  captivity  and  towards  the  Church,  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  regard  Timothy  as  a  fellow-writer.  In  the  only  private  letter, 


PATTL  AS  AN  AUTHOR.  209 

benediction  itself  appears  again  in  the  first  Epistle  to  the 
Thessalonians  in  the  simplest  form  (x<*pts  v/uv  /cat  fipyvrj) ; 
but  the  second  already  assumes  the  nature  of  a  reflection  on 
the  source  of  the  wished- for- thing  in  God  the  Father  and 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (comp.  Gal.,  Phil  em.),  ^u,Gv  being 
usually  added  after  O.TTO  Ocov  irarpos  (Cor.,  Bom.,  Eph.,  Phil., 
comp.  Col.).8  Paul's  favourite  way  of  beginning  his  epistle 
is  with  thanksgiving,  in  which  he  gratefully  acknowledges 
all  the  good  that  God's  grace  has  bestowed  on  his  readers, 
frequently  adding  a  petition  for  what  still  remains  to  be 
desired.  Only  in  the  Galatian  Epistle  does  severe  censure 
take  its  place,  while  in  the  second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
a  thanksgiving  for  the  grace  that  has  been  manifested  to 
him,  in  the  form  of  an  expression  of  gratitude  for  what 
God  has  enabled  him  to  do  for  the  Church,  is  substituted 
(ii.  14,  ff.).  In  the  Ephesian  Epistle  alone  it  is  preceded 
by  solemn  praise  of  God  for  the  Divine  acts  of  salvation. 

to  Philemon,  he  also  names  Timothy  together  with  himself  and  the 
person  addressed,  with  whom  the  whole  letter  is  concerned,  besides  a 
number  of  others,  just  as  in  the  Corinthian  letters  the  salutation  extends 
beyond  the  circle  of  the  recipients,  the  Philippian  letter  expressly  in- 
cluding the  officers  of  the  Church.  Moreover  he  designates  the  saluted 
sometimes  as  definite  Churches  (Thess.,  Gal.,  Cor.),  sometimes  as  the 
Christians  in  a  definite  place  (Bom.,  Col.,  Phil.),  in  both  cases  character- 
izing them  as  such  more  minutely. 

3  It  thus  appears  that  even  this  benediction  has  by  no  means  a 
stereotyped  form  throughout.  In  the  Colossian  Epistle,  according  to 
the  corrected  text,  the  KO.I  Kvptov  'Iijeov  XpwToO  is  altogether  wanting, 
while  in  the  Galatian  Epistle  the  dro  0eoO  irarpos  KO.I  xvplov  TJHUV  'Ir)<r 
Xp.  is  followed  by  a  reference  to  the  saving  work  of  Christ  in  relation 
to  the  contents  of  the  epistle,  which  closes  with  a  doxology  (i.  3-5). 
In  the  Epistles  to  Timothy  it  runs  thus:  xdpis,  £Xeoj,  dpfyr)  avb  Otov 
irarpfo  Ktd  XptoroO  'lyffov  TOV  Kvplov  i)/j.&v ;  in  Titus :  "X&P1*  Ka*  dpfyn 
dwb  9.  irarp.  Ka.1  Xp.  'Irjir.  TOV  ffurrrjpos  ijfiuv.  Moreover  this  form  of  the 
Christian  benediction,  in  which  the  purely  Jewish  Shalom  is  joined 
with  the  Christian  wish  for  x&pts,  is  scarcely  specifically  Pauline,  since 
the  xdpts  v/j.iv  iced  clpr)vq  appears  also  in  the  Petrine  Epistles  and  the 
Apocalypse,  the  reflection  on  the  source  of  the  wished-for -thing  in  God 
and  Christ  occurring  in  2  John  3  and  in  the  Apocalypse  i.  4  etc.,  and 
?\coj  in  2  John  3  and  Jude  2. 


210  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  LETTERS. 

Even  in  Philem.  and  2  Tim.  the  thanksgiving  is  not  wanting, 
•while  I  Tim.  and  Titus  begin  at  once  with  exhortation.  As 
to  the  rest,  the  precise  formula  varies  very  much  according 
to  the  occasion  and  object  of  the  epistle.  At  most  it  may 
be  said  of  the  Apostle,  that  after  disposing  of  the  chief 
points  of  which  he  has  to  treat,  he  is  fond  of  adding  a 
number  of  general  exhortations  that  have  little  or  no  con- 
nection with  the  main  objects  of  the  epistle.  But  these  also 
vary  exceedingly  in  substance  and  extent.  On  the  other 
hand  it  is  natural  that  all  greetings,  directions,  recommenda- 
tions, and  other  extraneous  or  personal  matter,  should  come 
at  the  end;  although  this  element  is  neither  peculiar  to 
the  Pauline  Epistles,  nor  does  it  characterize  them  in  equal 
measure.  The  form  of  the  conclusion  too  is  not  stereo- 
typed, as  may  be  seen  from  the  very  dissimilar  way  in  which 
Paul  is  accustomed  to  put  his  own  signature  to  the  epistles 
(No.  3) ;  nor  even  that  of  the  filial  benediction  in  which  it  is 
his  wont  to  invoke  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  on 
his  readers.4 

5.  The  fact  that  we  have  so  rich  a  literary  legacy  from 
Paul  is  not  by  any  means  exclusively  due  to  the  circumstance 
that  opportunities  for  epistolary  communication  presented 

4  Already  in  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  we  read :  i)  x<£/uf 
TOV  xvplov  -finQv  'IijtroD  XpiorotJ  neff'  vftwr  (corop.  Col.  and  1  Tim. : 
tuff"  vnwv),  in  the  second  :  /ucr&  vavruv  v/uwr  (comp.  Titus:  ^  X<i/xt 
KOLVTUV  v/x£r),  and  in  the  Galatiau  Epistle :  /urd  rod  rm'Mar 
d5€\<f>ol-  d.fj.T)i>  (comp.  PLilem.  and  Phil. :  ^  x°Pl*  r-  KVP-  'I*??-  Xp. 
r.  rrei'Atarot  iVwi»).  In  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  the  ^ 
rov  niplov  'I-qaov  p.t8'  V/JLWV  is  followed  by  an  assurance  of  love  to  all ; 
in  the  second,  the  full  threefold  apostolic  blessing  is  substituted  for  the 
simple  benediction,  just  as  in  tbe  Roman  Epistle,  the  great  concluding 
doxology;  in  the  Ephesian  Epistle  we  find  a  double  benediction,  more 
copious  in  expression  (vi.  23,  f.) ;  and  in  2  Tim.  it  runs :  6  Ki/ptot  /trri 
TOI'  Trvtvuarfa  <rov.  i)  xaV"  M<^'  bnuv.  Only  in  the  Apocalypse  xxii.  21 
do  we  find  also  the  final  benediction  :  ^  XV'J  T°v  Kvpiov  'Irfffov  /xrri 
irAvTwv  with  its  Pauline  ring,  and  in  Heb.  xiii.  26  ^  x<*/>*r  M^i  -r&vruv 
i'fi&v ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  1  Pet.  v.  14  and  3  John  15  have  tbe 
fanrlar  Jewish  farewell. 


PAUL  AS  AN  AUTHOB.  211 

themselves  to  him  in  the  wide  circle  of  his  Chuvches  and  in 
his  comprehensive  activity,  more  frequently  than  to  others. 
He  had  obviously  inclination  and  capacity  for  literary  acti- 
vity ;  and  the  fact  that  it  found  expression  only  in  letters 
must  be  attributed  solely  to  circumstances.  It  was  necessary 
for  him  to  unfold  his  ideas,  and  in  presenting  them  to  be- 
come conscious  of  their  close  connection  as  well  as  all  their 
grounds  and  consequences.1  His  Rabbinical  schooling  had 
taught  him  to  establish  a  thesis  dialectically  on  all  sides,  to 
prove  it  by  refuting  objections  raised  against  it  or  antici- 
pated by  himself,  to  guard  it  against  misunderstandings,  and 
to  explain  it  by  copious  argument.  His  logic  is  often  some- 
what artificial,  so  that  it  is  difficult  to  follow  the  train  of 
his  reasoning.  He  makes  use  of  Scriptural  arguments  for 
which  his  knowledge  of  Scripture  supplied  him  with  the 
richest  material.  Sometimes  he  employs  Old  Testament 
Scripture  with  great  freedom  of  citation  and  combination, 
of  explanation  and  application ;  again  he  plays  on  words  in 
true  Rabbinical  fashion,  or  puts  forward  allegorical  interpre- 
tations. But  his  literary  skill  is  by  no  means  shown  merely 
in  doctrinal  details  in  the  stricter  sense,  least  of  all  in 
polemic  or  apologetic  alone,  but  is  equally  manifest  in  his 
psychological  analyses,  his  richly  coloured  pictures  of  pie- 
Christian  or  Christian  conditions  and  forms  of  life  and  the 
religious  and  historical  disquisitions  connected  therewith, 
as  also  in  his  deep  grasp  and  copious  development  of  the 
fulness  of  salvation  contained  in  the  great  fundamental  facts 
of  the  gospel.  His  exhortation,  by  which  the  doctrinal  ar- 
gument is  frequently  interrupted  in  the  most  lively  way, 
is  inexhaustible  in  its  revelation  of  the  deepest  and  richest 
motives,  and  in  tracing  them  up  to  the  facts  of  salvation. 

1  Whatever  opinion  may  be  held  as  to  the  aim  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  it  must  be  admitted  that  it  goes  far  beyond  its  proximate  pur- 
pose ;  moreover,  its  doctrinal  discussions  have  frequently  no  relation 
whatever  to  the  simple  motive  that  called  them  forth. 


212  EPISTOLARY  PECULIARITIES   OF  PAUL. 

He  knows  also  how  to  appropriate  the  form  of  Jewish  wis- 
dom ;  maxim  follows  maxim,  short,  disconnected,  with  the 
greatest  diversity  of  form,  and  wanting  in  strict  arrangement. 
The  last  characteristic  is  most  strikingly  seen  wherever  he 
falls  into  descriptions  and  enumerations  of  virtues  and  faults, 
of  the  conditions  of  life  and  work.  Bat  it  is  certain  that  we 
never  find  the  cold  objectivity  of  the  author,  because  the 
living  warmth  of  the  letter-writer  throbs  in  all  his  epistles. 
Hence  the  frequent  addresses,  the  ever-recurring  questions 
with  which  he  draws  out  his  details.  Paul  is  able  power- 
fully to  move,  but  also  to  lift  up  and  comfort ;  high  moral 
earnestness  is  always  associated  in  him  with  depth  of 
religious  feeling,  which  often  finds  vent  in  inspired  utter- 
ance. He  is  not  without  passion,  he  lashes  the  weaknesses 
and  errors  of  his  readers  without  pity,  he  is  able  mortally 
to  wound  his  opponents,  and  does  not  even  despise  the 
weapons  of  irony  and  satire.  But  the  softest  tones  of  the 
mind  are  likewise  at  his  disposal,  the  ebullition  of  righteous 
anger  softens  down  to  the  most  touching  expression  of  heart- 
felt love,  he  can  speak  the  language  of  deeply  wounded  love 
as  well  as  of  the  most  ardent  longing,  of  exulting  gratitude 
as  well  as  suppressed  pain.  He  knows  how  to  win  with 
delicate  tact  and  patient  tenderness;  and  in  intercourse  with 
a  friend  does  not  even  despise  the  clever  jest.8 

A  Vatican  MS.  contains  the  notice  that  the  rhetorician  Lougiuus  con- 
eluded  au  enumeration  of  the  great  orators  with  Paul  of  Tarsus,  who 
might  even  be  pronounced  the  first  (corap.  Nagel,  de  judicio  Longini, 
Altdorf,  1772).  The  genuineness  of  this  citation  is  very  doubtful ;  at  all 
events,  the  judgment  rests  on  a  complete  mistake.  Paul  himself  defi- 
nitely repudiated  all  (striving  after  rhetorical  art  as  well  as  philosophic 
culture  (§  13,  3,  note  2).  What  was  formerly  written  de  Pauli  eloqueu- 
tia  (Kirchmaier,  1695;  Baden,  1766)  or  of  a  Logica  and  Rhetorica 

*  It  is  clear  how  impossible  it  is  in  the  case  of  one  so  richly  endowed 
with  intellect,  whose  every  epistle  and  group  of  epistles  show  the  greatest 
diversity  of  form  aud  substance,  to  prove  the  spuriousnesa  of  a  writing 
from  the  relatively  new  form  of  its  composition. 


PAUL  AS  AN  AUTHOB.  213 

Paulina  (Bauer,  Halle,  1774,  82),  is  a  mistake.  The  thing  that  is  so 
taking  in  Paul's  epistles  is  their  substance  and  living  warmth,  not  their 
form.  His  antitheses  and  paradoxes,  his  play  on  words  and  ideas,  show 
the  riches  and  fineness  of  his  intellect,  but  are  not  artificial  means ;  his 
images,  often  indicated  but  cursorily,  and  applied  almost  without  the 
consciousness  of  their  imagery,  frequently  drawn  out  even  into  copious 
allegories,  and  in  many  cases  strangely  intermixed,  want  rhetorical 
purity  and  moderation  in  their  carrying  out. 

6.  The  fact  that  the  Apostle  has  rounded  off  his  view  of 
salvation  in  Christ  almost  to  the  completeness  of  a  system, 
is  closely  connected  with  his  literary  giftedness.  But  to 
suppose  that  his  views  took  this  mature  form  all  at  once  on 
his  conversion,  is  quite  unhistorical.  It  is  true  that  the  life 
he  had  been  leading,  which  terminated  in  his  conversion,  and 
the  individual  experience  of  salvation  he  made  on  this  occa- 
sion, must  have  had  a  certain  influence  on  the  development 
of  his  views ;  but  since  in  the  nature  of  things  he  could  only 
be  gradually  awakened  to  the  need  of  becoming  conscious  on 
all  sides  of  the  close  continuity  of  the  new  saving  truth  that 
had  been  opened  up  to  him,  as  well  as  of  the  premises  it 
implied  and  the  conclusions  to  which  it  led,  it  follows  that 
the  means  which  led  him  more  and  more  exclusively  to  the 
Gentile  mission,  and  the  necessity  of  establishing  and  secur- 
ing freedom  from  the  law  to  his  Gentile  Christian  Churches 
in  opposition  to  the  pretensions  of  Jewish- Christian  zealots, 
first  drove  him  to  perfect  on  all  sides  and  to  establish  on  a 
firm  basis,  the  peculiar  character  of  his  saving  announcement, 
his  profound  conception  of  Christianity  as  a  new  dispensation 
of  grace  and  its  relation  to  the  Old  Testament  revelation  of 
salvation  and  of  the  law.1  Hence  it  is  a  priori  a  great  mis- 

1  A  comparison  of  the  Corinthian  Epistles  with  Galatians  and  Romans 
shows  unanswerably  that  the  doctrine  of  justification,  with  all  its  presup- 
positions and  consequences,  developed  in  the  great  struggle -period  of  his 
life,  by  no  means  exhausted  the  entire  range  of  his  Christian  views  or 
determined  it  exclusively  ;  and  yet  it  is  only  where  personal  certainty  of 
salvation  is  concerned  that  we  can  speak  of  a  systematic  perfection.  The 
doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  and  of  the  saving  significance  of  His  death, 


'2U  LANGUAGE  OP  PAUL. 

take  on  the  part  of  the  Tubingen  school  to  make  the  doctri- 
nal system  of  the  great  doctrinal  and  polemic  Epistles  the 
criterion  whereby  to  prove  which  of  all  the  Pauline  epistles 
that  have  been  handed  down  to  us  is  genuine.  And  the  mis- 
take is  only  aggravated  if,  by  recognising  the  first  Thessa- 
lonian  Epistle,  or  that  to  the  Philippians,  the  principle  be 
conceded  that  a  view  so  much  less  f  ally  developed  as  appears 
in  the  former,  or  one  so  peculiarly  unfolded  in  many  ways  as 
is  to  be  found  in  the  latter,  may  be  Pauline,  and  yet  where 
other  epistles  are  in  question  a  want  of  accuracy  in  the  form 
of  that  system  of  doctrine  be  regarded  as  a  sign  that  they 
are  not  of  Pauline  origin.  In  the  case  of  an  intellect  so 
largely  capable  of  development  as  that  of  the  Apostle,  no 
new  departure  or  relative  change  of  theological  views  can 
surprise,  or  lead  to  a  hasty  condemnation  of  the  writings 
which  contain  them  as  spurious.  This  could  only  happen  if 
the  traces  of  the  religious  experiences  he  made  should  any- 
where be  found  to  be  extinct ;  or  ideas  directly  at  variance 
with  those  arising  out  of  such  experiences  be  found  to  have 
been  adopted.  For  so  certainly  as  Paul  is  the  theologian 
proper  among  the  apostles,  so  certainly  is  it  an  utter  mis- 
conception to  regard  him  as  the  author  and  advocate  of  a 
doctrinal  system  which  owed  its  origin  to  speculative  and 
not  specifically  religious  motives. 

7.  The  view  formerly  maintained  by  Bolten  (in  his  trans- 
lation of  the  New  Testament  Epistles)  and  Bertholdt,  that 
Paul  originally  wrote  his  epistles  in  Aramaic,  refutes  itself. 
As  a  Hellenist  he  spoke  Greek  from  his  childhood,  read 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  translation  of  the  LXX.  (comp. 

of  the  Church  and  ita  development  towards  the  consummation  at  hand, 
is  in  these  epistles  only  touched  upon  in  incidental  utterances  capable  of 
much  richer  and  fuller  development;  and  his  views  of  the  reorganization 
of  the  life-relations  of  the  natural  man,  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  are  visibly 
checked  in  their  development  by  the  preponderance  of  the  purely  religious 
interest  and  by  the  conception  of  the  close  proximity  of  the  second 
coming. 


BAUL  AS  AN  AUTHOR.  215 

Kautsch,  de  V.  T.  locis  a  P.  ap.  allegatis,  Lips.,  1869),  and 
during  his  Gentile  Christian  ministry  remained  in  constant 
intercourse  with  Greek-speaking  people.1  It  was  not  indeed 
classical  Greek  that  he  wrote,  since  he  was  a  stranger  to 
Greek  literature  (§  13,  3),  but  the  language  of  the  people 
and  of  common  life  (certainly  allied  to  the  KOIVJ;),  which  was 
essentially  influenced  by  the  LXX.  in  its  expression  of  reli- 
gious ideas  and  conceptions.  His  language  is  therefore 
wanting  in  classical  correctness,  in  the  rich  usage  of  par- 
ticles and  in  fineness  in  the  application  of  moods,  as  well  as 
in  artistic  structure  of  periods.  His  sentences  flow  on  irre- 
gularly by  means  of  constantly  recurring  participles  or 
subjoined  relatives ;  or  they  become  overladen  with  new  ex- 
planatory prepositions  and  inserted  relative  clauses ;  where  he 
aims  at  a  more  fully  developed  periodic  structure,  he  readily 
founders,  the  thread  being  lost  in  lengthened  parentheses 
and  the  discourse  broken  off  irregularly.  A  constant  strug- 
gling of  idea  with  form,  the  influx  of  new  thoughts  and  fresh 
relations  that  he  desires  to  put  forward,  deprive  the  language 
of  proportion  and  finish.  Again,  the  discourse  advances  in 
short  clauses  connected  by  the  slightest  particles,  then  breaks 
off;  the  language,  abrupt  and  elliptical  even  to  obscurity, 
changing  capriciously  and  having  no  uniformity  whatever. 
From  this  we  see  plainly  that  it  is  hazardous  to  speak  of  a 
Pauline  style  (comp.  J.  Hoffmann,  de  stilo  Pauli,  Tub.,  1757). 
The  subjects  on  which  he  writes  are  too  varied,  the  moods 
that  influence  him  too  changing,  while  the  freedom  of  the 
epistolary  form  hinders  all  approach  to  a  fixed  and*  charac- 
teristic style.  On  the  other  hand,  Paul  certainly  created  for 

1  His  epistles  too  are  collectively  addressed  partly  to  Greek-speaking 
persons,  even  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  for  Borne  had  long  been  an 
urbs  Grteca,  as  the  whole  Christian  literature  emanating  from  Borne  and 
addressed  to  Borne,  shows.  Hence  the  view  of  Harduin,  Bellarrnin,  Corn, 
a  Lapide,  and  others,  that  this  epistle,  or  perhaps  all  the  rest,  were 
originally  written  in  Latin,  is  a  tendency-fiction  on  behalf  of  the  Vulgate, 
which  even  Catholic  theologians  have  long  since  abandoned. 


216  HIS  DOCTBI^AL  LANGUAGE  AND  WOBD-TBEASUBE. 

himself  a  distinctly  marked  doctrinal  phraseology ;  his  strict 
dialectic,  as  well  as  his  leaning  to  sharp  formnla,  and  the 
need  to  establish  his  position  firmly  in  the  straggle  of  oppo- 
sites  determined  its  form.  Bat  even  this  was  by  no  means 
peculiar  to  him  from  the  first ;  and  in  many  points  we  can 
still  follow  its  gradual  development.  Above  all,  the  great 
doctrinal  and  polemic  epistles  show  that  he  was  never  fettered 
by  it  and  never  made  it  a  mechanical  habit ;  and  there  are 
parts  where  he  uses  great  freedom  of  expression,  scarcely 
showing  a  trace  of  his  peculiar  style;  occasionally  we  find 
even  a  change  to  a  more  specifically  Christian  and  a  more 
general  religious-moral  mode  of  expression.  This  shows 
what  a  mistake  it  was  to  make  the  proportion  in  which  his 
technical  doctrinal  language  appears,  a  criterion  for  the 
criticism  of  the  epistles  handed  down  as  Pauline.8  To 
make  the  four  principal  epistles  the  categorical  standard 
of  his  lexical  phraseology  in  so  far  as  it  was  not  directly 
influenced  by  his  doctrine,  and  to  measure  all  that  claims  to 
be  of  Pauline  origin  by  them,  is  a  manifest  blunder.  Each 
one  of  the  epistles  shows  a  fulness  of  hapaxlegomena,  many 
different  expressions  for  the  same  thing,  and  manifold  points 
of  contact  with  other  New  Testament  writings ;  for  the  lin- 
guistic treasure  from  which  they  all  drew  was  essentially 
the  same.  The  four  epistles  certainly  show  a  number  of 
peculiar  and  favourite  expressions,  but  they  are  closely  allied 
in  time  and  move  in  a  kindred  circle  of  thought  correspond- 
ing to  the  circumstances  of  their  origin.  But  even  here  we 
see  how  readily  this  or  that  favourite  expression  may  be 
entirely  absent  from  a  comprehensive  epistle, -and  how  little 
such  absence  justifies  a  conclusion  as  to  spuriousness  ! 

*  Having  been  formed  in  the  struggle-period  and  for  its  needs,  it 
recedes  of  itself  so  soon  as  the  oppositions  that  called  it  forth  recede  or 
disappear.  It  is  quite  at  variance  with  the  wealth  of  Paul's  intellect  to 
suppose  that  he  could  not  have  developed  new  forms  of  expression  if  the 
appearance  of  new  oppositions  had  led  to  new  advances  of  his  doctrinal 
views. 


PAUL  AS  AN  AUTHOR,  217 

The  proofs  for  the  distribution  of  the  lexical  vocabulary  among  the 
various  epistles  which  defies  all  computation,  are  furnished  by  the  con- 
cordance in  the  case  of  each  given  letter.  Under  a  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  shows  20  hapaxlegomena ;  1  Cor.  24,  2  Cor.  14,  the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians  only  1.  Bat  to  these  must  be  added  8,  4,  3  and  1  words 
respectively  that  each  of  the  epistles  has  in  common  with  certain  later 
ones ;  21,  23,  7  and  8  that  each  respectively  has  in  common  with  other 
N.  T.  writings;  and  16,  5,  4,  0,  which  each  has  in  common  with  both ; 
so  that  Eomans  has  65,  1  Cor.  56,  2  Cor.  28,  and  Gal.  10  words  which 
are  not  in  the  other  epistles ;  while  Bomans  and  1  Cor.  have  almost  an 
equal  number  of  substantives  and  verbs,  2  Cor.  has  more  substantives, 
Gal.  almost  exclusively  verbs,  and  1  Cor.  more  adjectives  than  substan- 
tives. Among  these  are  to  be  found  words  such  as  a.va.icpiveu>,  which 
occurs  ten  tunes  in  Corinthians,  cnreidetr  appearing  5  times  in  Romans, 
and  several  that  are  to  be  found  3  times  in  one  epistle  (comp.  espe- 
cially avea-is  in  2  Cor.).  On  the  other  hand  we  cannot  be  surprised  that 
the  Thessalonian  Epistles  show  4+2 ;  Eph.  8 ;  Col.  11 ;  Phil.  8 ;  1  Tim. 
and  2  Tim.  17  each ;  Tit.  5 ;  and  Philem.  2  hapaxlegomena.  To  these 
may  be  added  respectively  6+3,  7, 3,  8,  8  +  2, 2,  and  1,  which  each  of  the 
epistles  has  exclusively  in  common  with  other  N.  T.  writings ;  and  4+4, 
7,  1,  and  1  which  they  respectively  share  with  later  epistles,  so  that,  as 
compared  with  the  older  epistles,  1  Thess.  has  14,  2  Thess.  9,  Eph.  22, 
Col.  15,  Phil.  17, 1  Tim.  25,  2  Tim.  19,  Tit.  7,  and  Philem.  4  character- 
istic words ;  while  Eph.  and  Col.  have  almost  as  many  substantives  as 
verbs,  1  Tim.  most  substantives,  Thess.  and  Phil,  most  verbs,  2  Tim.  and 
Tit.  a  great  preponderance  of  adjectives.  Frequently  a  word  appears 
only  in  two  of  the  four  great  epistles ;  Bom.  shares  31  with  1st  and  2nd 
Cor.,  10  with  Gal.,  1st  and  2nd  Cor.  13  with  each  other,  while  Corinth- 
ians and  Gal.  have  8  in  common.  Among  these  62,  2  (avri/jna-dia,  a^cera- 
fj.f\i]Tos)  are  nowhere  else  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament,  5  (ayaOu- 
ffwt),  ayuavwij,  airXon/s,  aipOapina,  area*  at)  only  in  Paul,  14  only  in  other 
writings,  and  21  in  both.  In  like  manner,  Eph.  and  Col.  have  8  words 
in  common  (5  &ir.  Xey.),  and  the  Pastoral  Epistles  10  (7  &ir.  Xey.).  On 
the  other  hand,  of  the  words  that  occur  in  the  other  epistles,  2  are  want- 
ing in  Bom.,  5  in  1  Cor.,  11  in  2  Cor.,  and  14  in  Gal.  Of  these,  2  are 
only  to  be  found  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  (tupopfjo),  art/act),  7  are  current 
with  Paul  (aKadapvia,  aKpofivaTia.,  avade/J-a,  airoffToXij,  afoKtpot,  aXarreiv, 
airetcSexeffffai),  while  23  frequently  appear  everywhere  else.  ThusBomans 
is  deficient  in  such  words  as  aXXoj,  aSi/ceo* ;  1  Cor.  ayados,  auwios,  2  Cor. 
cu/xa,  cnroKa\irjrrewt  ayeu>t  apecr/cetV,  Gal.  aSiKia,  avaymj,  ayavijTos,  aytos, 
a<ppup,  acnrafeffdai,  enroXXwai,  aaOeveiv.  Among  the  words  that  occur  in 
all  four  epistles,  only  apa  ow  is  found  exclusively  in  Paul,  while  ayvoeiv 
is  frequent  with  him,  and  both  appear  in  the  later  Paulines.  From  this 
we  may  judge  how  little  significance  can  be  attributed  to  the  fact  that 
in  the  Philippian  Epistle  a/xa/>Tiais  wanting,  in  1  Thess.  (Philem.) 


218  THE   THE3SALONIAN  EPISTLES. 

in  2  ThePB.  (Philem  )  airo<rTo\o»,  in  Tit.  aS«\<f>ot,  in  Philem.  arOpuTot,  in 
both  Thessalonian  Epistles  (Philem.)  otwr,  in  both  Epistles  to  Timothy 
(Philem.)  oXXijXwr,  in  1  Thess.  and  1  Tim.  axovtiv  ;  in  Phil.,  1  Tim.,  Tit., 
and  Philem.  aycnrav,  and  iuEph.,  Philem.,  and  the  Pastoral  Epistles  the 
eu»  so  frequent  in  Paul. 

§  17.    THE  THESSALONIAN  EPISTLES. 

1.  The  first  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  puts  us  back  into 
the  time  when  Paul  had  worked  a  few  weeks  in  Corinth, 
and  Timothy  had  just  come  to  him  with  Silas  (Acts  xviii.  5  ; 
comp.  1  Thess.  i.  1,  iii.  6).  The  time  of  his  ministry  in 
Thessalonica  is  still  vividly  present  to  his  mind,  the  found- 
ing of  a  Gentile  Christian  Church  there  is  still  new,  and  is 
much  talked  of  in  Christian  circles  everywhere  (i.  8  f.)  ; 
the  Apostle  still  feels  as  if  robbed  of  his  children,  and 
has  repeatedly  purposed  to  return  to  them  (ii.  17  f.).  At 
last  he  sends  Timothy  from  Athens,  to  strengthen  them, 
and  it  is  this  journey  from  which  the  latter  had  just  re- 
turned (iii.  1-6). l  The  accounts  which  he  had  brought  of 
the  faith  and  life  of  the  Church  were  in  the  main  joyful 
(i.  3).  The  Church  had  held  their  teacher  in  good  remem- 
brance and  longed  in  their  heart  to  see  him  again  (iii.  6), 
in  the  much  frequented  commercial  city  they  had  had  many 
opportunities  of  showing  by  hospitality  their  love  to  the 
Macedonian  brethren  (iv.  10).  But  the  pressure  of  affliction 
under  which  they  suffered  from  the  beginning  (i.  6,  ii.  14), 
had  visibly  increased  rather  than  diminished ;  they  had  to 
suffer  severe  persecutions  from  their  heathen  countrymen, 

1  The  error,  founded  on  a  misunderstanding  of  iii.  1,  that  this  epistle 
was  written  in  Athens,  as  old  subscriptions  put  it,  has  been  revived  by 
Bdttger  (Deitrdge  zur  hiitor.  krit.  Einl.  in  die  paulin.  Schriften,  Gottingeu, 
1837)  and  Wurm  (Tiibinger  Zeitschrift  fur  Theol.,  1883,  1).  Schrader 
and  Kohler  (Venueh  tiber  die  Abfiutungseeit  der  apottol.  Schriften,  etc., 
Leipzig,  1830)  have  put  the  Epistle  much  Inter;  the  former,  because  Paul 
had  already  visited  the  Church  repeatedly  at  the  time  of  Acts  zx.  2  f. 
The  latter,  by  a  false  interpretation  of  ii.  16,  puts  it  even  after  the  break- 
ing out  of  the  Jewish  war. 


THE   FIRST   THESSALONIAN   EPISTLE.  219 

and  this  Lad  made  many  feeble-minded  and  dispirited  (v. 
14,  16  f.).  Moreover,  the  unbelieving  Jews  tried  to  per- 
suade them  that  they  were  led  astray  by  cunning,  ambitious 
and  self-seeking  deceivers,  who,  after  having  set  those  whom 
they  had  deceived  entirely  at  enmity  with  their  countrymen, 
for  their  own  part  had  fled  at  the  right  moment  to  escape 
from  righteous  punishment.2  Whether  much  or  little  re- 
gard was  paid  to  such  insinuations,  yet  by  this  means  the 
Church  was  roused  to  keener  susceptibility  to  the  enmity 
in  which  it  was  involved  on  account  of  its  new  faith.  But 
so  much  the  more  did  it  cling  under  present  oppression  to 
the  Christian  hope  of  the  future  which  held  out  a  prospect 
of  release  from  all  trouble,  at  the  second  coming  of  the  Lord. 
Paul  had  indeed  announced  the  speedy  approach  of  it,  and 
hoped  to  live  to  see  it  himself;  nor  were  prophets  wanting 
in  the  Church,  who,  in  a  superabundance  of  Christian  in- 
spiration, described  the  glory  of  the  kingdom  of  God  that 
was  at  hand  (v.  19  f.).  But  the  more  they  occupied  them- 
selves with  these  questions  respecting  the  last  things,  which 
always  attract  the  curiosity  of  immature  believers,  so  much 
the  more  did  .the  excitement  of  the  Church  increase.  It 
reached  such  a  pitch  that  many,  waiting  for  the  near  event 
and  professedly  preparing  only  for  it,  gave  up  their  civic 
employments,  and  so  became  a  burden  on  the  beneficence  of 

1  That  the  apologetic  details  of  the  second  and  third  chapters,  in- 
terpreted by  de  Wette,  Bleek,  and  Lunemann  simply  as  naive  outpour- 
ings of  the  heart,  pre-suppose  calumnies  of  this  nature,  is  at  the  present 
day  more  and  more  universally  acknowledged.  They  can  neither  have 
proceeded  from  Jewish  Christians,  a  conclusion  to  which,  however, 
Lipsius  comes  in  the  main  (Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1854,  4),  since  there  could 
scarcely  have  been  a  considerable  or  influential  number  of  such  in 
Thessalonica  (§  15,  4),  nor  from  Gentiles,  as  Hofmann  and  v.  Soden 
(Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1885,  2)  suppose,  but  solely  from  unbelieving  Jews,  who 
claimed  to  know  their  countrymen  only  too  well,  as  plainly  appears  from 
the  polemic  joined  with  his  apology  and  directed  against  the  Jews  as 
enemies  of  the  gospel  (ii.  14-16).  Comp.  Hilgenfeld,  Hausrath,  Sabatiei, 
and  especially  P.'Schmidt,  dererste  Thessalonicherbri'f,  Berlin,  1885. 


220  STATE  OP  THE   CHURCH. 

the  Church,  or  even  on  their  heathen  countrymen  (iv.  11  f., 
v.  14).  Their  fanatical  conduct  naturally  called  forth  on  the 
other  side  cold  criticism  by  which  prophetic  inspiration  was 
despised;  subtle  disputes  arose  respecting  the  time  and 
hour  of  Christ's  second  coming  (v.  1  f.,  19  f.),  instead  of 
earnest  preparation  for  it.  The  rulers  of  the  Church,  who 
endeavoured  to  repress  the  disorder  on  both  sides,  could  not 
maintain  their  authority  (v.  12  f.).  Lastly,  the  first  deaths 
had  taken  place  in  the  young  Church,  and  had  deeply  stirred 
their  minds,  because  those  who  died  so  prematurely  appeared 
to  lose  the  glory  coming  in  with  the  second  advent  of  the 
Lord  (iv.  13  f.).  From  all  this  we  understand  why  the 
Apostle  speaks  of  the  imperfect  faith  of  those  whom  he 
would  so  willingly  have  helped  by  a  new  visit  (iii.  10) ; 
moreover  their  moral  life  presented  the  image  of  a  Church 
that  was  still  young  and  unconsolidated.  The  Christian 
brotherly  love  for  which  he  so  highly  commends  them,  was 
to  increase  and  abound  (iii.  12,  iv.  10)  ;  and  although  he 
acknowledges  that  they  knew  his  instructions  as  to  the 
Christian  walk  and  made  them  their  gniding  principle  (iv. 
1  f.),  yet  his  earnest  warnings  against  the  cardinal  heathen 
vices  of  unchastity  and  avarice  (iv.  3-8),  show  that  their 
practice  still  left  much  to  be  desired.  It  was  these  con- 
ditions of  the  Church,  as  known  to  Paul  through  the  com- 
munications of  Timothy,  that  moved  him  to  write  his  first 
epistle. 

2.  With  gratitude  to  God  Paul  speaks  of  their  present 
state  of  faith ;  but  in  expressly  emphasizing  his  certainty 
of  their  election  owing  to  the  Divine  working  of  his  preach- 
ing in  them,  and  the  exemplary  way  in  which,  after  his 
example  and  that  of  the  Lord,  they  had  received  the  word 
in  much  affliction  (i.  3-7),  his  object  is,  by  this  reference 
to  the  Divine  origin  of  their  Christian  state,  to  strengthen 
them  to  persevere  in  it,  just  as  his  allusion  to  the  world- wide 
fame  of  their  conversion  from  heathenism  to  Christianity  is 


THE  FIKST  THESSALONIAN  EPISTLE.  221 

meant  to  encourage  them  to  maintain  their  good  reputation 
(i.  8-10).  He  then  turns  to  the  calumnies  by  which  some 
had  sought  to  discredit  the  work  of  God's  messengers  among 
them.  The  apostle  calls  to  mind  how  the  bitter  experiences 
he  had  just  made  at  Philippi,  and  the  severe  struggles  amid 
which  he  began  his  work  among  them,  were  not  adapted  to 
give  him  joy  in  his  ministry  if  he  had  not  been  divinely  com- 
missioned to  bring  them  a  message  from  God  (ii.  1  f.).  To 
prove  that  it  was  not  a  delusion,  and  that  he  did  not  preach 
to  them  from  impure  motives  or  in  unrighteous  ways,  he  ap- 
peals to  the  fact  that  he  did  not  deceive  them  with  flattering 
words,  nor  sought  gain  or  honour  from  men,  but  proclaimed 
the  gospel  with  the  tenderest  self-sacrificing  love,  while  earn- 
ing his  bread  laboriously  by  the  work  of  his  hands  (ii.  3-9). 
He  calls  them  and  God  to  witness  how  he  had  worked  among 
them  even  after  their  conversion,  with  fatherly  love,  and 
reminds  them  once  more  how  they  had  received  bis  word  as 
the  word  of  God,  and  had  experienced  its  efficacy,  since  it 
had  made  them  strong  to  endure  the  enmity  of  their  country- 
men as  steadfastly  as  the  primitive  Church  had  suffered  that 
of  the  Jews  (ii.  10-16). l  When  he  goes  on  to  describe 
how  he  had  longed  from  the  beginning  to  return  to  those 
who  were  his  joy  and  crown  of  glory,  and  had  only  been 
hindered  by  the  continued  enmity  of  the  adversary  (ii. 
17-20),  how  he  could  have  no  rest  until  he  had  parted  with 

1  Bat  when  in  this  connection  he  points  to  the  Jews  as  the  special 
enemies  of  Christ  and  His  gospel  (ii.  16  f.),  he  undoubtedly  refers  to 
the  fact  that  such  calumnies  proceeded  from  them,  and  that  by  means 
of  these  they  sought  to  disturb  his  work  among  the  Gentiles.  The  l<f>9a- 
trtv  tir'  atroiis  rj  6p*ft  els  rAos,  from  which  false  conclusions  were  formerly 
drawn  respecting  the  date  of  the  epistle,  neither  points  to  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  from  which  Baur  inferred  the  spuriousness  of  the  epistle, 
nor  to  all  the  excesses  of  the  procuratorship  in  Judea  contemporary  with 
our  epistle  (W.  Grimm,  Stttd.  u.  Krit.,  1850,  4),  much  less  to  the  edict  of 
Claudius  de  pellendis  Judais,  to  which  P.  Schmidt  has  lately  referred  it, 
but  to  the  increasing  obduracy  of  the  people  in  which  the  wrath  of  God 
against  Israel  was  consummated,  as  v.  Soden  has  rightly  perceived. 


222  ANALYSIS  OF  THE   EPISTLB. 

his  companion,  preferring  to  remain  alone  that  they  might 
be  comforted  under  the  afflictions  he  had  foretold  (iii.  1-5), 
it  is  clear  that  this  is  directed  against  the  calumny  that 
represented  him  as  haying  by  cowardly  flight  escaped  the 
persecutions  he  had  not  expected,  leaving  them  to  their 
misery  without  concern.  He  himself  in  his  present  abode  is 
in  like  affliction  and  distress ;  but  the  good  news  brought  by 
Timothy  have  given  him  new  life  and  roused  him  to  fervent 
gratitude  towards  God,  joined  with  the  constant  prayer  that 
God  would  lead  him  to  them  again,  and  would  in  the  mean- 
time strengthen  and  perfect  them  for  the  coming  of  the 
Lord  (iii.  6-13). 3  It  is  only  by  way  of  supplement  that  he 
goes  on  to  remind  them  of  the  instructions  he  had  given 
them  respecting  the  Christian  life,  especially  with  regard 
to  keeping  themselves  pure  from  the  specifically  heathen 
vices  of  unchastity  and  covetousness  (iv.  1-8) .  Of  brotherly 
love  he  does  not  find  it  necessary  to  speak,  and  would  not 
speak  of  it  except  to  admonish  them  to  procure  the  means 
for  exemplifying  it  by  diligent  labour,  instead  of  making 
Christianity  a  disgrace  before  the  heathen  by  idleness  and 
begging  (iv.  9-12).  The  way  in  which  he  proceeds  to  in- 
struct them  respecting  the  last  things  shows  beyond  a  doubt 
that  it  was  the  restless  occupation  with  questions  of  eschat- 
ology,  and  the  morbid  excitement  thus  induced,  that  had  led 
many  to  give  up  regular  work.  It  is  evident  that  Paul,  who 
himself  thought  the  advent  of  the  Lord  to  be  so  close  at  hand, 
did  not  enter  more  minutely  into  the  question  as  to  what 
should  become  of  those  who  might  die  in  the  interval ;  and 
what  he  may  possibly  have  said  of  the  resurrection  at  the 
second  coming  found  no  proper  sympathy,  owing  to  the 
antipathy  of  the  Greek  mind  against  this  very  idea  (comp. 

*  The  solemn  prayer  with  •which  this  first  part  of  the  epistle  con- 
cludes, as  well  as  the  junction  of  what  follows  with  Xotrbf  ofo  (iv.  1), 
show  without  doubt  that  far  from  being  an  introduction,  it  contains  the 
chief  thing  which  the  Apostle  has  to  say  to  the  TLeabalonians. 


THE  FIBST  THESSALONIAN  EPISTLE.  223 

Acts  xvii.  32).  For  tliis  reason  lie  first  explains  that,  it  is 
founded  in  faith  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ  and  in  His 
word, 3  that  at  the  second  coming  of  Christ  the  dead  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  shall  first  be  raised,  and  thus  be  put  quite 
on  a  par  with  those  who  survive,  in  order  to  be  taken  by  the 
Lord  into  His  glory  (iv.  13-18).  With  respect  to  the  ques- 
tion as  to  the  time  of  the  second  advent,  which  would  cer- 
tainly come  suddenly  and  unawares,  he  contents  himself 
with  an  exhortation  to  earnest  preparation  for  it  (v.  1-11). 
So  too  in  the  general  concluding  admonitions  (v.  12-22), 
there  are  frequent  echoes  of  the  special  relations  to  which 
the  epistle  refers,  although  they  undoubtedly  go  beyond  the 
latter. 4  After  a  full-toned  benediction,  the  fulfilment  of 
which  he  seals  with  an  Amen,  Paul  commends  himself  to 
the  intercession  of  his  readers  (v.  23-25).  It  is  apparent 
that  the  epistle  was  handed  over  to  the  rulers  of  the  Church; 
for  it  is  to  them  that  the  Apostle  turns  with  the  direction  to 
greet  all  the  brethren  with  a  holy  kiss,  charging  them  to 
have  his  epistle  read  before  a  full  meeting  of  the  Church, 

*  This  word  of  the  Lord  is  certainly  not  on  the  whole  what  was  said  by 
Him  respecting  His  coming,  as  v.  Soden  still  maintains,  but  that  which 
is  preserved  in  Matt.  iv.  21 ;  for  if  at  the  return  of  the  Lord  all  His  elect 
should  be  gathered  together  about  Him,  those  already  dead  cannot  be 
excluded,  but  mast  rather  have  been  first  raised  up.  Whilst  Steck 
(Jahrb.  fur  prot.  Theol.,  1883,  4),  thinks  he  discovers  in  it  the  words  of 
4th  Ezra  v.  41  etc.,  he  infers  from  the  use  of  this  book  the  spuriousness 
of  our  epistle.  But  a  reminiscence  of  Matt.  xxiv.  43  is  manifestly 
contained  in  v.  2  also. 

4  Compare  particularly  v.  15-22.  But  in  v.  12  f.  the  peace  of  the 
Church  is  evidently  made  to  depend  on  due  respect  for  the  rulers  of  the 
Church ;  the  ATO.KTOI  whom  Paul  exhorts  the  Church  to  warn,  are  un- 
questionably those  fanatical  idlers  ;  but  the  feeble-minded  and  weak  to 
whom  the  exhortation  to  constant  joy,  prayer,  and  thankfulness,  is 
particularly  addressed,  are  those  who  are  bowed  down  by  the  suffering 
state  of  the  Church,  and  made  to  waver  (v.  14  f.).  The  admonition 
not  to  quench  or  despise  prophetic  inspiration  but  to  prove  it  (v.  19  f.), 
carries  us  directly  into  the  Church-gatherings  excited  by  eschatologioal 
prophesyings. 


224  CRITICISM  OF  THE   EPISTLE. 

•upon  which  the  final  blessing  follows  (v.  26  f.).  This 
arrangement  seems  to  point  to  the  fact  that  Paul  began 
his  epistolary  intercourse  with  the  Churches  by  this  letter, 
and  had  therefore  to  give  directions  as  to  what  use  should 
be  made  of  it. 

3.  When  Baur  in  his  Paulus  (1845)  pronounced  the 
epistle  to  be  spurious,  after  the  solitary  precedent  of 
Schrader,  he  had  some  support  in  the  prevailing  exegetical 
view  regarding  it.  If  the  first  three  chapters  were  actually 
to  be  looked  upon  as  mere  outpourings  of  the  heart  and 
retrospective,  they  seem  to  have  just  as  little  motive  as 
the  Jewish  polemic  (ii.  14-16)  by  which  they  were  inter- 
rupted, and  the  short  exhortations  and  occasional  eschato- 
logical  teachings  in  chaps,  iv.,  v.,  such  as  are  elsewhere 
subordinate  in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  must  form  the  chief 
object  of  this  epistle,  which  therefore  does  certainly  seem  to 
be  without  sufficient  motive  or  independent  meaning.  But 
if  the  historical  occasion  of  the  epistle  be  rightly  estimated, 
it  is  a  highly  characteristic  monument  of  the  time  when 
the  Apostle  encounters  no  other  opposition  than  that  of  a 
slandering  and  persecuting  Judaism,  frustrating  and  under- 
mining his  activity  among  the  heathen  by  every  means  in 
its  power,  as  we  learn  from  the  account  of  his  Macedonian 
mission  given  in  the  Acts  (§  15).  The  picture  of  a  Christian 
Church  that  is  still  young,  and  much  admired  for  the 
enthusiasm  with  which  it  had  received  the  gospel,  though 
depressed  by  sorrowful  experiences,  deeply  agitated  by 
esohatological  questions,  and  still  lacking  in  the  attainment 
of  the  Christian  spirit  in  practical  life,  that  meets  us  in  the 
epistle,  is  true  to  nature,  and  bears  in  itself  the  stamp  of  its 
genuineness ;  while  Baur's  attempt  to  prove  that  it  contains 
opposing  elements  and  points  to  a  longer  duration  of  the 
Church,  is  vain.  His  view,  that  the  epistle  is  manifestly 
dependent  on  the  Acts  throughout,  is  refuted  by  the  fact 
that  the  narrative  of  the  latter  is  frequently  supplemented 


THE   THESSALONIAN  EPISTLES.  225 

and  corrected  from  the  epistle  in  question  (§  15,  4).  Sub- 
sequently (Theol.  Jahrb.,  1885,  2)  Baur  laid  special  stress  on 
the  fact  that  the  epistle  was  copied  from  those  to  the  Corin- 
thians, which  however  do  not  exhibit  a  single  parallel  pass- 
age, such  as  we  find  in  the  Roman  and  Galatian  Epistles,  and 
have  moreover  many  points  of  contact  with  the  Corinthians 
from  the  nature  of  the  subject.1  Besides  peculiar  idioms, 
such  as  appear  in  every  epistle  and  contain  nothing  anti- 
Pauline,  we  find  the  most  striking  resemblances  in  thought 
and  expression  to  the  other  Pauline  Epistles,  and  especially 
to  the  Corinthian  Epistles,  as  P.  Schmidt  and  v.  Soden  in 
particular  have  exhaustively  shown.  But  above  all  there  is 
no  definite  tangible  motive  for  the  view  that  the  epistle  is  a 
fabrication,  since  it  does  not  give  prominence  to  the  apostolic 
authority  of  Paul  even  in  the  address,  but  names  him  along 
with  Silvanus  and  Timotheus.2  Finally  the  exhortation  to 

1  Both  are  addressed  to  Christian  Churches  essentially  Gentile,  that 
had  to  be  warned  against  the  cardinal  vices  of  the  heathen,  and  had  no 
knowledge  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection ;  both  congregations  were 
successively  taken  from  the  lower  classes,  for  which  reason  Paul  refused 
the  support  of  the  Church  in  both  cases  ;  in  both  epistles  Paul  naturally 
expresses  himself  in  the  same  way  of  the  manner  of  his  activity  and  ita 
results,  of  his  love  and  longing  for  them ;  in  both  the  personal  suspicions 
to  which  he  was  subjected,  in  the  one  case  from  the  Jews,  in  the  other  from 
the  Jewish  Christians,  revert  to  the  same  point.  Other  things,  such  as  the 
repeated  wish  to  return  to  them,  and  again  his  altered  plans  of  journey, 
the  sending  of  Timothy  here  and  of  Titus  there,  his  solicitude  about  the 
condition  of  the  Church  in  the  one  place,  and  the  impression  made  by 
his  epistle  in  the  other  place,  are  brought  into  tendency-parallelism  only 
in  an  artificial  way. 

3  This  could  only  consist  in  the  eschatological  discussions,  or  since 
v.  1-11  contains  but  practical  admonitions  with  a  view  to  the  second 
coming  the  time  of  which  was  uncertain,  in  iv.  13-18;  although  even  here 
the  common  Christian  eschatological  expectations  are  reproduced.  But 
this  very  section  does  not  presuppose  that  an  entire  Christian  generation 
was  already  deceased,  in  which  case  believers  must  have  been  long 
familiar  with  the  idea  that  many  would  not  live  to  see  the  second  coming, 
but  that  the  Church  was  disturbed  by  the  first  cases  of  death  that  occurred 
in  it.  Nor  could  a  later  writer  have  possibly  attributed  to  the  Apoftle 
the  expectation  that  he  would  still  survive  the  second  advent  (iv.  15), 


226  CRITICISM   OF  THE   FIRST  EPISTLE. 

read  the  letter  to  the  assembled  Church  (y.  27)  is  quite  in- 
telligible  in  the  case  of  a  first  epistle  of  the  Apostle ;  but  if 
made  to  refer  to  its  official  ecclesiastical  reading,  would  put 
the  epistle  at  the  end  of  the  second  century,  a  time  when 
nobody  supposes  that  it  was  written. 

Since  Grimm  and  Lipsius  (Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1850,  4;  1854,  4),  defended 
the  epistle  against  Baur  whom  Volkmar  followed,  and  Hilgenfeld  also 
persistently  upheld  its  genuineness  in  opposition  to  him,  the  question  is 
looked  upon  by  the  later  critical  school  as  settled  (comp.  Weisse,  Haus- 
rath,  Pfleiderer,  Holtzmann  in  Schenkel's  Bibellex.,  v.,  1876,  limner), 
Holsten  alone  (Jahrb.  f.  protest.  Theol.,  1877,  4),  still  finding  united 
Faulinism  in  the  Trilogy  i.  3  (comp.  also  Steck,  No.  2,  note  3).  Its 
genuineness  has  again  recently  (1885)  been  defended  at  length  by  P. 
Schmidt  and  v.  Soden.  But  they  labour  in  vain  to  refute  the  idea  that 
it  contains  an  undeveloped  form  of  Pauline  doctrine.  Just  as  certainly 
as  Christianity  already  appears  here  as  the  Divine  dispensation  of  grace 
in  which,  by  means  of  the  gospel,  faith  is  awakened  in  the  elect,  who 
through  the  sanctification  effected  by  the  Spirit  of  God  are  prepared  for 
salvation  at  the  second  advent,  so  certainly  are  all  doctrinal  mediations 
of  these  saving  facts  lacking.  As  certainly  as  Christ  is  represented  as 
the  Divine  Lord  from  whom,  just  as  from  God  Himself,  all  salvation 
proceeds,  so  certainly  is  there  a  lack  of  all  more  definite  utterances 
respecting  the  person  of  Christ,  the  saving  meaning  of  His  death  for  us 
(v.  10),  and  the  form  of  the  final  completed  salvation  that  He  brings 
with  Him  at  His  second  advent.  Of  the  inability  of  the  natural  man  to 
workout  his  own  salvation,  of  the  seat  of  sin  in  the  flesh,  of  justification 
by  grace  or  of  community  of  life  with  Christ  mediated  by  His  Spirit,  of 
the  position  of  the  Christian  as  regards  the  law,  or  of  the  Apostle's 
profound  reflections  on  the  relation  of  Christianity  to  Judaism  and 
heathenism,  we  have  not  a  word,  although  the  way  in  which  the  Jews 
thrust  themselves  in  between  him  and  his  Gentile  Christians  gave  ample 
occasion  for  such  mention.  If  therefore  this  epistle  be  regarded  as 
genuine,  the  view  that  Paul  had  his  whole  system  of  doctrine  substan- 
tially complete  from  the  beginning,  is  absolutely  excluded.  Whoever 
finds  a  lack  of  all  that  proves  itself  Pauline  in  the  great  doctrinal  and 
polemic  epistles,  cannot  consistently  hold  this  epistle  to  be  genuine. 

4.  We  do  not  know  how  long  a  time  had  elapsed  since  the 
first  letter  of  the  Apostle,  when  Paul  again  received  news 
from  Thessalonica  that  led  him  to  write  a  second.  But  since 

after  the  fact  that  he  belonged  to  those  who  died  before  it,  had  long  been 
certainly  known. 


THE    SECOND  THESSALONIAN   EPISTLE.  227 

Silvanus  and  Timotheus  were  still  with  Mm  (2  Thess.  i.  1), 
he  must  have  been  in  Corinth;  and  iii.  2  points  so  defi- 
nitely to  a  hostile  threat  of  decisive  importance,  that  we 
are  most  ~  naturally  led  to  think  of  the  complaint  made  by 
the  Jews  before  the  proconsul  (Acts  xviii.  12  ff.).  The 
Church  had  made  gratifying  progress  in  faith  and  love, 
and  had  been  most  coinmendably  patient  in  persecution 
(2  Thess.  i.  3  ff.)  ;  but  the  weight  of  affliction  under  which 
it  suffered,  gave  rise  to  ever  new  depression.  Hence  the 
Apostle  had  to  remind  them  that  the  very  severity  of  the 
conflict  with  their  enemies  was  a  guarantee  of  the  approach- 
ing righteous  judgment  of  God  which  was  to  bring  them 
release  from  all  their  trouble  (i.  5  ff.),  when  their  heavenly 
Lord  should  come  again  to  judge  the  heathen  and  all  the 
enemies  of  the  gospel  (i.  7  ff.),  and  to  be  glorified  in  His 
saints ;  in  which  glory  he  prays  that  they  may  participate 
(i.  10-12).  On  the  other  hand,  the  very  pressure  of  persecu- 
tion had  given  a  morbid  stimulus  to  the  hope  of  the  near 
approach  of  the  second  advent.  Prophets  had  arisen  in  the 
Church  who  proclaimed  the  immediate  coming  of  the  great 
day  of  the  Lord,  appealing  for  confirmation  of  their  announce- 
ment to  words  spoken  by  Paul,  or  even  to  epistles  said  to  have 
been  written  by  him  (ii.  1  f.),  so  that  it  was  necessary  for 
the  Apostle  to  remind  them  how  he  had  told  them  before, 
that  the  second  coming  of  Christ  would  be  preceded  by  the 
climax  of  godlessness  concentrated  in  a  person,  kept  back,  as 
they  were  aware,  by  a  restraining  power  (ii.  3-7).  But  in 
order  to  prevent  new  disquietude  to  which  this  prospect 
might  possibly  give  rise,  he  lays  stress  on  the  fact  that  the 
appearance  of  Christ  would  put  an  immediate  end  to  his 
adversary ;  the  only  object  of  whose  coming  was  by  his 
seductive  arts  to  make  the  unbelieving  ripe  for  judgment 
(ii.  8-12).  They  on  the  other  hand  were  appointed  to  sal- 
vation and  to  glory,  if  they  only  held  fast  to  what  he  had 
taught  them  by  word  and  epistle ;  to  which  end  he  invokes 


228  CRITICISM   OP  THE  EPISTLE. 

comfort  and  strength  from  the  Lord  on  their  behalf  (ii. 
13-17).  He  then  commends  himself  to  their  intercession  in 
the  dangers  by  which  he  is  threatened,  and  once  more  gives 
expression  to  his  full  confidence  that  they  would  remain  true 
to  his  exhortations,  desiring  that  they  might  have  the  assist- 
ance of  the  Lord  (iii.  1-5).  But  he  could  not  cherish  this 
confidence  in  respect  of  every  individual.  The  morbid  excite"- 
ment  of  those  who  left  their  civil  employment  was  raised  to  a 
still  higher  pitch  by  the  enhanced  expectation  of  the  second 
advent ;  and  in  spite  of  the  exhortations  of  the  first  epistle, 
they  had  not  returned  to  their  work  (iii.  6-12).  The  Apostle 
had  therefore  no  alternative  but  to  admonish  the  Church  to 
withdraw  from  all  intercourse  with  these  disobedient  mem- 
bers, in  order  by  shunning  them  to  bring  them  back,  not 
however  intending  by  this  to  prohibit  brotherly  admonition 
afterwards  as  well  as  before  (iii.  13-16).  But  in  order  to 
prevent  all  improper  use,  such  as  had  been  made  of  epistles 
alleged  to  have  been  written  by  him  (ii.  2),  he  here  found  it 
necessary  for  the  first  time  to  authenticate  his  letter  by  a 
postscript  in  his  own  hand  (iii.  17  f.,  comp.  §  16,  3).1 

5.  Doubts  as  to  the  genuineness  of  this  epistle,  to  which 
Chr.  Schmidt  in  his  Introduction  (1804)  first  gave  currency, 
were  entertained  by  de  Wette  in  the  earlier  editions  of 
his  Introduction ;  but  after  the  exhaustive  refutations  by 
Guericke  (in  his  Beitriige)  and  Reiche  (Authentia  Poster,  ad 
These.  Epist.,  Gott.,  1829)  he  withdrew  them.  Kern  was  the 

1  After  the  example  of  Grotius,  Ewald  endeavoured  to  prove  in  his 
Jahrb.  f.  bibl.  Wittenschaft  (8,  1851),  that  the  so-called  second  Epistle  to 
the  Thessalonians  was  written  first  probably  in  Berca,  and  was  followed 
by  Laurent  (Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit ,  18C4,  3).  But  in  the  first  epistle 
Paul  addresses  a  newly  founded  Church  ;  he  here  boasts  of  its  further 
development ;  in  the  former  he  speaks  quite  freely  of  the  nearness  of  the 
second  coming,  in  the  latter  he  already  considers  it  necessary  to  obviate 
a  misunderstanding  of  this  expectation ;  the  direction  to  punish  those 
who  remained  disobedient  here  follows  the  warning  agaiust  a  disorderly 
life.  ii.  15  obviously  presupposes  that  the  Church  had  already  received 
written  instructions,  and  ii.  1  refers  back  to  1  Thess.  iv.  17. 


THE   SECOND  THESSALONIAN  EPISTLE.  229 

first  to  make  another  and  a  more  incisive  attack  on  the 
epistle  (Tubinger  Zeiischrift  fur  Theol.,  1839,  2)  ;  but  while 
formerly  ii.  2,  iii.  17  had  been  regarded  as  a  ground  for 
throwing  suspicion  on  the  first  epistle,  he  looked  upon 
the  second  rather  in  the  light  of  an  attempted  imitation 
of  the  first.  He  already  brought  together  in  substance  all 
that  is  even  now  adduced  against  it — alleged  un- Pauline 
words  and  forms  of  expression  (such  as  ev^apurTeiv  o$eiXoju,ev 
and  the  frequent  use  of  /cvpios  instead  of  0eos),  the  unskilful 
exaggerations  of  the  first  epistle  and  other  grounds  of  sus- 
picion that  vanish  of  themselves  before  impartial  exegesis 
(comp.  against  him  Pelt  in  the  Theolog.  Mitarbeiten,  1874, 
2).  Baur  in  his  Paulus  (1845)  attached  himself  mainly  to 
him,  while  asserting  still  more  emphatically  that  the  escha- 
tological  passage  in  chap.  ii.  had  admitted  Jewish  ideas  of 
the  time  to  a  greater  extent  than  was  the  case  with  Paul, 
and  contravened  the  natural  expectation  of  the  nearness 
of  the  second  coming  implied  in  1  Cor.  xv.  (comp.  on  the 
other  hand  Grimm,  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1850,  4).  Subsequently 
(Theol.  Jahrb.,  1855,  2)  he  regarded  this  second  epistle  rather 
as  an  imitation  of  the  Corinthian  letters ;  and  adopting  the 
view  of  Grotius  and  Ewald  (No.  4,  note  1),  looked  upon  our 
first  epistle  as  an  imitation  of  it  from  a  later  standpoint. 
On  the  other  hand,  Hilgenfeld,  because  he  regards  the  first 
epistle  as  genuine,  naturally  takes  the  second  to  be  partly  an 
imitation  of  the  first  and  partly  its  antithesis,  interpreting 
ii.  15,  iii.  6  as  an  emphasizing  of  the  oral  and  written 
apostolic  tradition,  such  as  could  only  belong  to  the  second 
century.  Notwithstanding  the  manifest  weakness  of  these 
doubts  already  apparent  in  the  uncertainty  as  to  the  relation 
to  the  first  epistle,  the  rejection  of  the  second  epistle  has 
become  almost  as  universal  in  the  modern  critical  school 
as  the  recognition  of  the  first.  P.  Schmidt  alone  (Excursus 
to  bis  Thessalonicherbrief,  1885)  has  distinctly  admitted 
that,  apart  from  the  eschatological  passage  of  chap.  ii.  and 


230  THE   NERO-SAGA. 

isolated  interpolations,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  our 
regarding  this  epistle  as  a  shorter  Pauline  written  on  the 
basis  of  later  accounts.1  Hence  the  whole  question  turns 
upon  the  idea  whether  the  apocalyptic  combination  of  chap. 
ii.,  which  like  all  such,  is  attached  to  existing  relations  of 
time,  brings  us  into  the  post- Pauline  period,  or  may  be 
explained  from  the  circumstances  of  the  time  in  which  our 
epistle,  if  genuine,  must  have  been  written. 

6.  The  proper  leading  motive  even  of  Kern's  attack  lay  in 
the  presupposition  that  the  apocalyptic  view  of  our  epistle 
was  the  same  as  that  of  the  Apocalypse  of  John.  Con- 
sistently with  the  current  idea  of  the  latter,  Antichrist  was 
identified  with  the  Emperor  Nero,  of  whom  there  was  a 
tradition  that  he  was  not  dead  but  should  return  from  the 
East.  The  hindering  one  is  then  the  Emperor  Vespasian, 
with  his  son  Titus ;  the  apostasy,  the  horrible  infamy  that 
broke  forth  in  the  Jewish  war.  Hence  this  apocalyptic 
picture  must  have  been  drawn  by  a  Pauline  disciple  living 
in  the  years  68-70  and  struck  with  the  image  presented  by 
his  time.  Upon  this  basis  Baur  thought  it  possible  to  fix 
the  place  of  the  epistle  still  more  definitely.  According  to 
Tacit.,  Hist.,  2,  8,  after  the  murder  of  Galba  a  report  was 
actually  spread  in  Achaia  and  Asia  that  the  returning  Nero 
was  at  hand.  But  this  soon  proved  to  be  false,  and  the 
author,  as  a  warning  against  similar  delusions,  pointed  out 

1  The  alleged  unreconciled  discrepancies  with  the  eschatological  dis- 
cussions of  the  first  epistle,  which  he  still  finds  in  chap,  ii.,  disappear 
readily  enough.  For  the  fact  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  comes  as  a  thief 
in  the  night  (1  Thess.  v.  2)  by  no  means  excludes  the  appearance  of 
Antichrist  immediately  before,  whose  exaltation  out  of  the  great  apostasy 
is  just  as  incalculable  as  the  former  event ;  and  just  as  little  does  the 
fact  that  the  Apostle  still  hopes  to  live  to  see  the  second  coming  (1  Thess. 
iv.  17)  exclude  the  putting  aside  of  the  idea  that  it  was  already  at  hand. 
The  misleading  of  unbelievers  by  Antichrist  (2  Thess.  ii.  10,  f.)  certainly 
does  not  shut  out  the  possibility  of  their  living  in  rest  and  security  until 
that  time  (1  Thess.  v.  8),  suspecting  nothing  of  the  destruction  that  the 
approaching  judgment  is  to  bring  upon  them. 


THE   SECOND  THESSALONIAN  EPISTLE. 

that  Vespasian  must  first  be  overthrown  and  the  great 
apostasy  come  in,  while  the  whole  world  idolized  the  return- 
ing Nero.1  Hilgenfeld  sought  to  give  quite  a  different 
interpretation  of  the  apocalyptic  combination,  making  the 
aTTooracria  refer  to  the  falling  away  in  a  time  of  severe 
persecution,  and  was  thus  led  to  the  time  of  Trajan.  But 
in  face  of  all  his  attempts  to  prove  traces  of  that  time 
in  the  persecutions  mentioned  in  our  epistle,  nothing  except 
the  word  Stcoy/toi  (comp.  Bom.  viii.  35 ;  2  Cor.  xii.  10) 
points  beyond  the  expression  of  the  first  epistle ;  and  how 
the  appearance  of  the  Elxaibook  should  first  have  given 
rise  to  the  enhanced  expectation  of  the  second  coming 
is  beyond  conception.  Above  all  he  makes  the  /AVO-T^/JIOV 
T^S  avofiias  refer  to  germinating  Gnosticism  which,  as  an 
anti- Christian  force,  he  joins  with  the  returning  Nero  in  a 
way  that  is  quite  impracticable  ;  and  that  the  Empire  under 
Trajan,  with  its  persecution  of  Christianity,  should  hinder 
the  development  of  the  anti- Christian  power  from  reaching 
its  highest  stage,  is  a  thought  repugnant  to  common  sense.2 
P.  Schmidt  has  rightly  declared  against  this  application 
of  the  epistle  to  the  time  of  Trajan ;  but  while  going 

1  But  according  to  ii.  2  f.  there  was  so  little  disposition  to  look  for 
Antichrist  in  any  historical  personage,  that  people  were  deceived  as  to 
the  nearness  of  the  second  advent  the  rather  because  they  seemed  quite 
to  have  forgotten  that  it  must  first  be  preceded  by  this  climax  of  hos- 
tility to  Christ.  In  the  description  of  the  fij/o/ios  who  with  his  lying 
wonders  deceived  the  world  (ii.  8  f.),  nothing  points  to  the  form  of 
a  world-ruler,  especially  as  ii.  4  makes  no  mention  whatever  of  his 
apotheosis  but  of  his  blasphemous  self-exaltation.  But  it  is  still  quite 
inconceivable  how  the  appearing  of  the  returning  Nero  is  to  result  from 
an  airoffTaffta.  or  ivopta  which  is  already  active  in  secret  (ii.  3,  6  f.) ; 
since  neither  the  abominations  of  the  Jewish  war  could  bring  about  the 
return  of  Nero,  nor  the  deification  of  Cassar ;  nor  can  it  be  seen  by  what 
means  Vespasian  and  Titus  could  check  the  development  of  the  godless 
powers  in  their  final  personification. 

3  Hence  Babnsen  has  recently  endeavoured  to  transpose  the  whole 
apocalyptic  combination  of  this  epistle  into  such  position  with  respect 
to  tune  that  Antichrist  is  Gnosticism,  and  his  /car^xw  the  episcopate 
(Jahrb.fur  protest.  Theol.,  1880,  4). 


232  MISINTERPRETATION   01?  II.   2. 

back  with  Volkmar,  Holtzmann,  and  others  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  Kern,  he  has  not  been  able  to  justify  it  better 
than  its  author,  or  to  carry  it  out  exegetically.  The  pre- 
sumed allusions  of  the  epistle  to  the  Apocalypse  rest  solely 
upon  the  eschatological  expectations  that  were  common  to 
it  with  all  primitive  Christianity. 

7.  The  historical  interpretation  of  the  epistle  can  only 
proceed  from  the  fact  which  has  been  acknowledged  since 
the  Patristic  period,  and  is  maintained  even  amid  the  most 
contradictory  conceptions,  viz.  that  the  thing  which  still 
checks  the  development  of  the  an ti- Christian  power  (TO 
Karf\ov)t  is  the  continuance  of  the  Roman  jurisdiction,  espe- 
cially as  the  representative  of  it  is  called  a  person  (ii.  7, 
6  Karex&w),  which  can  only  refer  to  the  Roman  Emperor.1 
We  have  here  an  apocalyptic  combination  belonging  to 
an  older  time  than  that  of  John's  Apocalypse,  in  which  the 
Roman  Empire  itself  appears  as  the  upholder  of  anti- 
Christian  power  in  consequence  of  the  abominations  of 
Nero.  In  accordance  with  this,  the  last  incarnation  of 
such  power  appears  as  a  world-ruler,  and  beside  it  as  the 
second  beast,  false  prophecy,  the  power  that  leads  men 
aside  to  worship  it,  while  the  man  of  lawlessness  (the 
avofios  absolutely)  is  at  the  same  time  characterised  as  the 
false  prophet  by  virtue  of  the  signs  and  wonders  given  him 
by  Satan.  Since  therefore  the  latter  must  bo  a  product  of 
the  aTToo-Tatriu,  and  this  can  neither  be  looked  for  in  the 
sphere  of  Christianity  in  which  our  epistles  recognise  no 
opposites,  nor  in  the  sphere  of  heathenism  which  knows  not 
God  and  does  not  honour  Him  (i.  8),  the  apostasy  can  only 
take  place  within  Judaism,  whose  hostility  against  the 


1  It  was  indeed  mere  play  of  words  tbat  led  Hitzig,  Hausrath,  Dolliiigcr, 
Kenan  and  others  to  think  of  the  Emperor  Claudius  (qui  claudit,  comp. 
Marker,  Einige  dunkle  Uuutdnde  im  Leben  det  Paulut,  Giitersloh,  1871), 
since  a  definite  person  does  not  here  come  into  consideration,  but  only 
the  upholder  of  the  Roman  empire  as  such. 


THE   SECOND  THESSALONIAN  EPISTLE.  233 

Messiah  and  the  gospel  leads  more  and  more  to  complete 
apostasy  from  God  (comp.  Heb.  iii.  12).  Antichrist,  in 
whom  this  apostasy  culminates,  can  only  be  the  pseudo- 
Messiah,  the  lying  image  of  the  true  Messiah.2  This  com- 
bination, which  points  directly  to  Matthew  xxiv.  24,  only 
making  the  multiplicity  of  ^euSo^tcrrot  and  i/revoW/>o<£i7Tai 
culminate  in  one  person,  is  at  once  explained  by  the  position 
taken  by  Paul  in  his  first  epistle,  with  respect  to  Judaism,  as 
we  have  already  seen.  In  Judaism,  hostile  to  God  and  Christ, 
which  at  this  time  obstructed  the  Apostle  on  every  side, 
checking  him  in  his  work  (1  Thess.  ii.  14-16,  18),  the  avopia 
is  already  active  though  in  secret  (2  Thess.  ii.  7).  The 
thing  which  still  kept  back  the  full  development  of  this  anti- 
Christian  power  was  the  Roman  jurisdiction,  which  alone 
protected  the  Apostle  from  the  attacks  of  Jewish  fanaticism, 
as  he  had  hitherto  experienced.  Only  in  case  the  definitive 
apostasy  of  unbelieving  Judaism  culminated  in  the  pseudo- 
Messiah  who,  equipped  with  Satanic  powei*s,  should  over- 
throw the  bulwark  of  the  Roman  administration  in  the  last 
Jewish  revolution,  was  the  way  opened  up  for  anti-Christ- 
ianity, to  the  complete  destruction  of  Christianity;  if  the 
return  of  the  true  Messiah  had  not  at  this  veiy  juncture 
at  once  put  an  end  to  His  caricature.  Of  the  struggles  by 
which  this  last  catastrophe  is  brought  about,  as  represented 

8  When  on  the  other  hand  it  is  always  objected  that  the  self-apotheosis 
in  ii.  4  is  in  contradiction  to  the  conception  of  the  pseudo-Messiah,  the 
fact  is  entirely  overlooked  that  this  blasphemous  self -exaltation  was 
already  advanced  by  the  unbelieving  Jews  against  Christ,  as  a  mark  of 
his  pseudo-Messiahship.  As  Jehovah  Himself  comes  to  His  people  in 
His  Messiah,  the  pseudo-Messiah  can  only  be  recognised  from  his  making 
himself  God ;  and  since  ii.  4  can  only  refer  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem, 
it  must  be  the  pseudo-Jewish  Messiah  who  by  his  coming  to  it  proclaims 
himself  as  the  Jehovah  who  appeared  among  His  people.  That  the 
apostasy  appears  as  apostasy  to  avopMi,  so  far  from  excluding  the  mani- 
festation of  such  apostasy  in  the  sphere  of  Judaism,  rather  refers  the 
severance  from  God  and  His  law  as  the  climax  of  all  sin,  to  Judaism 
alone ;  while  the  alleged  zeal  for  the  law  manifested  by  the  Jews  in  their 
enmity  against  Christ  and  His  gospel,  may  be  taken  as  actual  dfo/Uo. 


234  SECOND  VISIT  TO  GALATIA. 

throughout  John's  Apocalypse,  our  epistle  shows  as  little 
trace  as  of  the  hope  of  the  establishment  of  an  earthly 
kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  which  is  connected  in  the  Apo- 
calypse with  the  idea  that  the  anti- Christian  power  con- 
centrated in  a  world-ruler  is  overcome  by  the  returning 
Messiah.  The  Lord  Jesus  consumes  the  avo/tos  with  the 
breath  of  His  mouth  (ii.  8)  and  leads  His  own,  whom  accord- 
ing to  Matt.  xxiv.  31  He  gathers  about  Him  (ii.  1,  comp. 
1  Thess.  iv.  15),  immediately  into  the  completed  kingdom 
of  God  (2  Thess.  i.  5),  where  they  become  partakers  of  the 
heavenly  glory  of  Christ  (ii.  14).  Thus  the  eschatological 
view  of  our  epistle  is  not  only  not  an  argument  against  its 
genuineness,  but  on  the  contrary  is  the  only  ground  on 
which  it  can  be  explained.8 

§  18.    THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANB. 

1.  After  a  short  sojourn  in  Antioch  (§  15,  7)  Paul  set  out 
for  Galatia  and  Phrygia,  in  order  to  strengthen  the  Churches 
there  (Acts  xviii.  23),  and  in  accordance  with  his  promise 

*  It  IB  objected  against  this  view  that  according  to  Bom.  ii.  25  f. 
Paul  hoped  for  the  conversion  of  all  Israel,  and  cannot  therefore  have 
conceived  of  Antichrist  as  proceeding  from  rebellious  Judaism,  or  as  a 
pseudo-Messiah.  Bat  it  is  overlooked  that  these  apocalyptic  combina- 
tions, by  which  the  signs  of  the  times  were  interpreted,  were  always 
conditioned  by  the  historical  constellation  and  must  therefore  change 
with  it  (comp.  §  22,  7,  note  2).  For  this  very  reason  that  of  our  epistle 
is  a  product  as  well  as  an  evidence  of  the  period  in  which  the  strain 
between  the  Apostle  and  unbelieving  Judaism  which  was  opposed  to 
him  as  his  sole  enemy,  had  reached  its  highest  point.  When  it  had 
been  subsequently  shown  that  this  Judaism  was  not  able  to  destroy  the 
work  of  Christ  in  the  Gentile  world,  when  much  severer  struggles  were 
prepared  by  Judaism  in  Christendom  itself,  he  could  no  longer  see  in 
unbelieving  Judaism  as  such  the  specific  anti-Christian  power ;  and  it  is 
one  of  the  characteristic  traits  of  the  epoch  to  which  the  Roman  Epistle 
belongs,  that  he  returned  to  the  primitive  apostolic  hope  of  all  Israel's 
conversion.  With  the  above  interpretation,  to  which  Mangold  and 
Schenkcl  also  assent,  comp.  Zur  Lehre  vom  Antichritt,  elaborated  by 
Ed.  Bdhmer  after  Schneckenburger  (Jahrb.  far  deuttche  Theol.,  1859,  3) 
and  B.  Weiss,  Apokalyptitche  St'idisn.  2  (Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1869,  1). 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   GALATIANS.  235 

made  at  Jerusalem,  to  make  a  collection  among  them  for  the 
poor  of  that  city  (Gal.  ii.  10;  comp.  1  Cor.  xvi.  I).1  During 
this  visit  Paul  already  found  matters  in  Galatia  by  no  means 
to  his  mind.  In  the  interval,  Jndaistic  influences  had  un- 
doubtedly been  at  work  in  the  Churches  of  that  place, 
endeavouring  to  persuade  the  Gentile  Christians  that  it  was 
necessary  for  them  to  be  circumcised  (Gal.  vi.  12),  under  the 
pretext  that  they  could  only  be  equal  members  of  the  Church 
of  the  Messiah  (iv.  17)  and  participate  in  the  full  Messianic 
salvation,  if  they  were  thus  incorporated  with  the  chosen 
people  to  whom  the  Messiah  had  come.  Care  had  indeed 
been  taken  not  to  carry  this  out  to  its  proper  conclusion  by 
subjecting  them  at  once  to  the  whole  burden  of  the  law ;  for 
in  order  to  open  their  eyes  to  the  full  meaning  of  this  step, 
Paul  had  already  to  make  a  solemn  declaration  that  each  one 
who  allowed  himself  to  be  circumcised  bound  himself  to 
fulfil  the  whole  law  (v.  3).  He  did  not,  however,  enter  into 
lengthened  discussion,  but  without  more  ado  pronounced  an 
anathema  on  all  who  should  preach  unto  them  another  gospel 
than  his  (i.  9),  viz.  on  all  who  should  make  full  salvation 
dependent  on  anything  but  faith  (comp.  iv.  16,  20).  He 
manifestly  took  his  departure  hoping  that  he  had  attained 
his  object  and  had  strengthened  the  Galatians  anew  against 
Judaistic  deception. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  indication  that  the  Judaistic  agitation  was 
brought  from  Judeea  or  Jerusalem  into  the  Church,  as  is  generally  aup- 

1  According  to  this,  the  gospel  seems  in  the  interval  to  have  spread 
from  the  Pauline  Churches  to  Phrygia  where  he  himself  had  not  yet 
preached  (Acts  xvi.  6 ;  comp.  §  15,  2) ;  yet  he  may,  even  at  this  time, 
have  passed  through  only  the  north-eastern  part  of  Phrygia,  separated 
from  the  south-western  p&rt  by  the  chain  of  mountains  running  through 
the  country,  since,  according  to  CoL  ii.  1,  he  did  not  personally  know  the 
Churches  of  the  latter  part.  The  visit  to  the  Galatian  Churches  is  ex- 
pressly presupposed  in  Gal.  iv.  13,  because  Paul  designates  his  stay  in 
which  he  first  preached  the  gospel  there  as  an  earlier  one;  while  on  the 
contrary,  Acts  xviii.  23  presupposes  the  existence  of  Christian  Churches 
in  Galatia  and  Phrygia,  notwithstanding  xvi.  6. 


236  SECOND  VISIT  TO  GALATIA. 

posed  ;  bat  within  the  Pauline  Churches  the  Jewish  element  was  certainly 
too  unimportant  to  be  able  to  advance  such  claims  where  the  immense 
majority  of  the  Churches  was  concerned.  The  fact  that  the  question  aa 
to  how  the  two  different  forms  of  Christianity,  characterised  respectively 
by  freedom  from  the  law  and  fidelity  to  the  law,  should  be  reconciled, 
here  cropped  np  again,  can  only  be  explained  from  the  circumstance  that 
in  Galatia  Jewish  Churches  had  formerly  existed  side  by  side  with  the 
Pauline  Churches.  It  must  remain  uncertain  how  much  was  known  iu 
the  Diaspora  of  the  decrees  at  Jerusalem  (§  14,  4)  and  how  far  people 
considered  themselves  bound  by  them,  since  even  in  Judea  the  party  of 
Pharisaic  zealots  did  not  consider  themselves  bound  by  these  decrees, 
which  from  their  standpoint  could  only  seem  to  be  unauthorized  conces- 
sions, while  afterwards  as  well  as  before  they  called  upon  believers  to 
come  out  of  heathenism  into  Judaism.  It  is  certain  that  those  who  here 
made  this  requisition  had  only  just  gained  an  entrance  into  the  Pauline 
Churches,  for  Paul  constantly  makes  a  distinction  between  them  and  the 
Church  members  whom  he  addresses  (i.  7,  iv.  17,  v.  10, 12). * 

2.  The  journey  of  the  Apostle  was  directed  to  Ephesus 
(Acts  xix.  1),  in  accordance  with  his  former  promise  (xviii. 
21).  But  he  cannot  have  been  there  long  when  new  accounts 
from  Galatia  brought  him  the  sorrowful  tidings  that  the 
hopes  with  which  he  had  left  the  Churches  of  that  place  had 
been  grievously  disappointed.  By  the  persuasive  arts  of 
men  they  had  been  led  away  from  the  truth  (Gal.  v.  7  f.),  and 
had  actually  turned  aside  from  the  free  Pauline  gospel  to 

«  A.  H.  Franke  (Stud.  «.  JTrif.,  1883,  1)  refers  the  first  error  of  the 
Church  back  to  an  eclectic  Jewish  Christianity  inclining  to  theosophy  in 
Asia  Minor  itself,  which,  however,  cannot  be  proved  (cump.,  on  the  other 
Bide,  Hilgenfeld,  in  his  Zeitsch.,  1881,  and  Mangold).  That  the  Jews  of 
the  Diaspora  did  not  from  the  first  bind  themselves  so  strictly  to  all  legal 
prescriptions  in  their  inevitable  intercourse  with  the  uncircumcised  (Gal. 
vi.  13),  and  therefore  did  not  impose  them  upon  the  Gentile  Christians 
(v.  8),  so  far  as  this  omission  at  first  did  not  arise  from  policy,  is  con- 
ceivable enough ;  BO  too  is  the  fact  that  they  6rst  sought  to  introduce 
the  Jewish  order  of  festivals  and  wor.-hi>>  (iv.  10),  which,  moreover, 
commended  itself  to  the  young  Gentile  Christiana  as  a  compensation  for 
their  heathen  worship,  such  as  the  Pauline  Church  life  did  not  afford. 
The  former  disputing  of  the  fact  that  Paul,  on  his  visit  to  Galatia, 
found  the  Churches  already  disturbed  by  Jewish-Christian  agitation, 
attempted  by  Eicbhorn,  Keander,  de  Wette.  and  Bleek,  may  be  regarded 
as  given  up. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE   GALATIANS.  237 

the  new  doctrine  of  law  (i.  6).  The  Jewish  festivals  had 
already  been  introduced  (iv.  9  f.)  ;  and  although  there  is 
no  indication  that  the  last  decisive  step  had  been  taken 
(v.  2),  yet  they  were  evidently  not  far  from  adopting  cir- 
cumcision. A  portion  of  the  Church  seems  indeed  to  have 
held  fast  by  Christian  freedom ;  but  by  their  arrogant  and 
rough  behaviour  towards  the  erring  brethren  appear  to  have 
only  increased  the  confusion  (v.  15,  26-vi.  3).  The  Apostle 
was  dismayed,  the  Church  seemed  bewitched  as  by  magic 
(i.  6,  iii.  1),  and  in  fact  the  question  arose,  what  produced 
this  sudden  change  ?  But  here  too  the  Epistle  contains  no 
hint  that  they  were  emissaries  from  Jerusalem  who  had  be- 
witched the  Church  by  the  authority  of  some  great  name.1 
The  explanation  lies  simply  in  the  fact  that  the  question 
which  had  formerly  been  treated  by  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians of  Galatia  as  an  obvious  consequence  of  the  faith  in 
the  Messiah  of  Israel  that  was  adopted  by  the  Gentile 
Christians,  had  by  the  energetic  interposition  of  Paul  first 
become  a  party  question,  in  which  the  authority  of  the 
primitive  apostles  was  set  up  against  that  of  Paul.  It  is 
indeed  entirely  arbitrary  to  assume  that  all  the  matters  dis- 
cussed by  Paul  in  Gal.  i.  and  ii.  had  been  presented  to  the 
Galatians  in  a  false  light ;  since  Paul  makes  no  attempt  to 
remove  an  incorrect  understanding  of  them.  But  it  was  very 

1  Franke  is  willing  to  concede  this  *o  the  common  view ;  but  if  the 
change  had  been  brought  about  by  so  definite  a  fact,  Paul  would  in  any 
case  have  indicated  this  cause,  which  explained  it  only  too  easily.  It  is 
obviously  the  same  nvh  who  at  that  tune  led  the  Church  astray,  and 
against  whom  ha  had  already  hurled  the  anathema  on  his  first  visit  (i.  6, 
9),  who  now  sought  to  gain  them  over,  and  with  whom  he  had  already 
contended  for  them  at  that  time  (iv.  17  f.).  How  could  Paul  say  rlt 
bfj.8.s  tpdffKavfv  (iii.  1)  if  they  were  real  intruders  who  had  done  so ;  and 
the  view  that  v.  10  alludes  to  some  great  unnamed  in  whose  authority 
the  seducers  acted,  is  purely  imaginative.  The  TUX^WS  in  i.  6  does  not 
permit  the  idea  that  the  Jerusalemites  were  called  in  to  help ;  they  must 
have  come  quite  accidentally  at  a  moment  when  they  were  able  to  throw 
the  Church  that  had  been  brought  to  reason  by  Paul,  into  still  worse 
error. 


238  FALLING  AWAY  OP  THE   CHURCHES  IN  GALATLL 

natural  that  the  Judaists  should  appeal  to  the  primitive 
apostles  who  remained  faithful  to  the  law  and  laboured  for 
the  conversion  of  Israel,  in  favour  of  the  fact  that  the  Mes- 
siah first  came  to  bring  the  promised  salvation  to  the  chosen 
people,  from  which  it  seemed  to  follow  as  a  matter  of  course 
that  all  who,  like  them,  wished  to  participate  in  the  fulfil- 
ment  of  salvation  must,  like  them,  be  Jews  faithful  to  the 
law.  Though  Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  appealed  to  his  gos- 
pel that  offered  the  free  grace  of  God  to  the  Gentiles  with- 
out subjecting  them  to  the  law  or  to  circumcision,  yet  it 
seemed  as  if  he  who  had  been  later  converted  and  later 
called  to  be  an  apostle,  could  only  have  received  the  gospel 
and  the  commission  to  preach  it  from  them  (i.  1, 11  f.),  and 
that  his  gospel  was  rather  a  perversion  of  the  primitive 
apostolic  gospel  of  Christ  which  recognised  no  abrogation  of 
the  old  law  of  God,  and  not  that  gospel  itself  (i.  7).  At  the 
most,  one  view  was  opposed  to  another;  and  what  actual 
ground  had  the  Galatians  for  being  led  away  by  Paul's 
rugged  bearing  and  passionate  zeal  for  his  gospel  from  the 
course  on  which  they  had  so  willingly  entered,  and  by 
which  they  wished  first  to  secure  for  themselves  the  full 
promises  of  the  gospel  ?  It  is  manifest  that  a  very  un- 
favourable construction  had  been  put  on  this  mode  of  his 
appearing ;  and  the  momentary  impression  it  must  have 
produced  might  readily  have  been  transformed  by  memory 
into  an  opposite  feeling  (iv.  16,  20).  Moreover,  they  felt 
that  they  could  appeal  to  the  fact  that  even  Paul  himself 
was  not  on  principle  opposed  to  circumcision,  which  in  cer- 
tain cases  he  required  3  and  that  it  was  a  desire  to  please 
that  led  him  not  to  exact  it,  in  order  to  make  it  easier  for 

*  It  has  indeed  been  thought  inconceivable  bow  such  an  assertion  could 
arise ;  but  it  was  certainly  known  in  Gulatia  that  Paul  himself  caused 
Timothy  to  be  circumcised  (§  15,  1,  note  2),  and  undoubtedly  he  did  not, 
according  to  1  Cor.  vii.  18,  require  Jewish  parents  to  omit  the  circum- 
cision of  their  children,  as  his  conduct  in  opposition  to  the  reproach 
(Acts  xxi.  21)  unquestionably  shows. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE   GALATIANS.  239 

them  to  receive  the  gospel  (i.  10,  v.  11).  Thus  the  whole 
question  suddenly  appeared  in  quite  a  new  light,  which 
was  blinding  enough  to  confuse  the  Galatians  and  bring  them 
to  submission.8 

3.  The  great  historical  importance  of  this  epistle,  which 
Paul  wrote  in  consequence  of  tidings  that  had  reached  him 
from  Gralatia,  consists  in  the  fact  that  in  it  he  found  it  neces- 
sary for  the  first  time  to  come  to  a  full  understanding  with 
Judaistic  error.  The  primitive  apostles  had  formerly  recog- 
nised his  free  gospel,  because  they  saw  a  Divine  intimation 
to  this  effect  in  the  Gentile  conversions  (§  14,  4).  But  it 
was  now  attacked  in  its  vital  principle.1  It  must  not  indeed 

3  This  is  only  incomprehensible  if  we  suppose  that  Paul  from  the  first 
preached  a  gospel  to  the  Galatians  in  which  the  abrogation  of  the  law 
through  the  cross  of  Christ  was  set  forth  with  fundamental  clearness. 
On  the  contrary,  his  preaching  of  the  gospel  in  Galatia  undoubtedly 
touched  the  question  of  the  law  as  little  as  it  had  done  in  Thessalonica. 
He  had  announced  Jesus  to  them  as  the  Saviour  in  the  final  judgment, 
without  need  of  coming  to  a  compromise  with  the  law  of  Israel,  which 
was  quite  foreign  to  the  uncircumcised.  He  had  even  on  his  second 
visit  there  simply  put  aside  the  question  of  circumcision  and  the  law, 
because  his  announcement  of  salvation  had  nothing  to  do  with  it,  and 
faith  could  only  be  destroyed  by  it.  Now,  however,  it  met  him  and 
demanded  a  thorough  explanation. 

1  It  was  not  indeed  a  few  depraved  fanatics  who  rose  against  his  autho- 
rity, least  of  all  former  proselytes,  as  Neander,  de  Wette,  Bleek  and 
others  assume,  from  a  misinterpretation  of  v.  12,  vi.  13.  We  must  not 
be  misled  by  the  excited  polemic  of  the  Apostle,  which,  after  the  question 
had  once  culminated  in  an  attack  on  his  official  authority  and  personal 
integrity,  did  not  remain  free  from  some  passionate  irritation  (comp. 
v.  12).  It  was  certainly  not  without  foundation  that  he  reproached  the 
deceivers  of  the  Church  with  having,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  nf; 
deeper  motive  in  the  zeal  with  which  they  sought  to  make  proselytes  t» 
Judaism  among  the  believing  Gentiles  than  to  commend  themselves  to 
their  unbelieving  countrymen,  in  order  that  by  this  means  their  own 
faith  in  a  crucified  Messiah  might  be  excused  (vi.  12  f.).  But  it  by  no 
means  follows  from  this  that  they  were  not  fully  persuaded  in  their  zeal 
for  God's  law  and  the  promises  given  to  the  people  of  the  circumcision, 
and  thought  in  this  way  to  promote  the  true  salvation  of  believers 
from  among  the  Gentiles,  regarding  both  as  compatible  with,  and  even 
necessary  to  faith  in  the  Messiah  and  the  salvation  brought  by  Him  38 
well  as  that  which  was  still  expected. 


240  AGITATORS   IN   GALATIA. 

be  supposed  that  the  Galatian  Jewish  Christians  set  np  a 
formal  doctrine  of  salvation  based  on  fundamental  principles 
in  opposition  to  his,  putting  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
works  over  against  that  of  justification  by  faith,  and  the 
view  of  Christianity  as  a  Jewish  doctrine  over  against  his 
view  of  it  as  a  universal  religion  (comp.  §  14,  3,  note  2). 
This  it  is  that  forms  the  epoch-making  importance  of  the 
Galatian  Epistle,  viz.  that  in  it  Paul  first  became  aware 
of  the  full  range  and  great  danger  of  Judaistic  error  as 
regarded  the  principle  of  the  doctrine  of  salvation,  and  ex- 
posed it  with  dialectic  acuteness.  However  specious  the 
reasons  for  requiring  circumcision  and  the  fulfilment  of  the 
law,  and  however  compatible  it  might  be  made  to  appear 
with  faith  in  the  Messiah,  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  could  only 
tend  to  draw  away  from  the  sole  ground  of  salvation  all  who 
yielded  to  it ;  for  if  anything  else  were  recognised  as  neces- 
sary to  salvation,  Christ  was  not  in  reality  the  exclusive 
and  all-sufficient  source  of  salvation,  nor  the  grace  of  God 
manifested  in  Him  the  only  ground  of  salvation,  invalidating 
all  human  work  and  human  merit.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
heathen  Churches  could  not  be  secured  against  the  fresh 
claims  constantly  made  on  them,  unless  the  Divine  origin  of 
his  gospel  in  the  free  grace  of  God  in  Christ  were  clearly 
set  forth,  proof  being  given  that  it  was  in  no  respect  at 
variance  with  the  law  and  the  promise  of  the  Old  Testament 
revelation  of  God,  but  rather  that  both  tended  to  the  same 
goal  of  faith  as  the  sole  condition  of  salvation.  Finally  it 
was  necessary  to  show  how  the  fundamental  freedom  from 
the  law  necessarily  required  by  his  gospel,  if  the  principles 
on  which  it  was  based  were  not  continually  to  be  called  in 
question,  did  not  by  any  means  give  a  licence  to  sin,  but 
rather  worked  out  the  fulfilment  of  the  will  of  God  revealed 
in  the  law,  on  the  basis  of  his  gospel,  though  only  in  a  new 
way.  How  the  individual  processes  of  thought  which  led  to 
this  end  gradually  opened  up  to  the  Apostle  is  natnrally  be- 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE   GALATIANS.  241 

yond  proof.  We  only  know  as  a  matter  of  history  that  his 
peculiar  doctrine  of  salvation  first  emerged  with  the  clear- 
ness of  a  principle  and  with  full  certainty,  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians,  and  that  it  was  in  the  struggle  with  Judaism 
that  he  forged  from  it  his  sharpest  weapons.2 

4.  Even  in  the  introductory  greeting  Panl  emphatically 
describes  himself  as  one  who  had  received  his  apostolic 
calling  not  from  man,  nor  yet  by  human  mediation,  but 
from  Christ,  who,  as  having  been  raised  from  the  dead  by 
the  Father,  could  only  have  mediated  such  calling  as  the 
instrument  of  God  Himself ;  and,  as  the  only  ground  of  sal- 
vation, points  to  the  death  of  Christ,  by  whom  according  to 
the  Divine  will  they  are  delivered  from  this  present  evil 
world,  and  therefore  need  no  longer  fear  the  destruction  by 

2  The  presupposition  which  here  lies  at  the  basis,  viz.  that  the  Gala- 
tiau  Epistle  was  written  soon  after  the  arrival  of  the  Apostle  at  Ephesus, 
may  now  be  looked  upon  as  settled.  Formerly  opinions  respecting  the 
time  of  its  composition  were  very  unsettled.  When  it  was  thought  that 
the  Churches  were  already  founded  in  the  first  missionary  journey  (§  13, 
4,  note  3),  and  therefore  the  second  visit  to  Galatia  was  seen  in  Acts  xvi. 
1,  the  epistle  must  have  been  written  before  the  Macedonian  mission,  and 
•was  consequently  the  earliest  of  all,  as  is  still  the  opinion  of  Hansrath 
(comp.  also  Schenkel).  And  when  Gal.  ii.  was  made  to  refer  to  his  visit 
to  Jerusalem  mentioned  in  Acts  xi.  30  (§  14,  3),  the  epistle  could  even 
be  carried  up,  as  Keil,  Patilus,  Bottger,  and  others  do,  prior  to  the  apos- 
tolic council.  An  earlier  date  was  naturally  come  to  by  all  wht>,  with 
Grotius,  denied  the  second  visit  of  the  Apostle  to  Galatia.  On  the  con- 
trary, others,  as  Mill,  have  put  it,  on  account  of  ii.  10,  into  the  last  visit 
to  Jerusalem  ;  or,  like  Schrader  and  Kohler,  have  even  dated  it  from 
Rome,  according  to  the  subscription  of  the  Received  Text,  which  origi- 
nated in  a  misunderstanding  of  vi.  17.  But  all  these  hypotheses  fall  to 
pieces  of  themselves  with  their  false  assumptions.  Hug  and  Riickert 
also  put  the  epistle  too  early  when  they  represent  it  as  written  on  the 
journey  to  Ephesus,  since  in  that  case  the  time  is  too  short  for  the  revo- 
lution that  had  occurred  in  the  meantime.  On  the  other  hand,  Credner, 
de  Wette,  and  Bleek  make  it  too  late,  supposing  it  to  have  been  written 
after  the  stay  at  Ephesus,  somewhere  in  the  interval  between  2  Cor.  and 
Horn.,  on  account  of  the  resemblance  between  it  and  the  latter  epistle, 
with  which  the  oCrut  rax^ws,  i.  6,  is  quite  irreconcileable.  The  assump- 
tion of  Hofmann  that  it  was  called  forth  by  a  writing  of  the  Galatians  to 
the  Apostle  is  destitute  of  all  foundation. 


242  ANALYSIS   OP   THE   EPISTLE. 

which  it  is  threatened  (i.  1-5) -1  But  instead  of  beginning 
with  a  thanksgiving  for  the  praiseworthy  state  of  the 
Church,  as  he  does  elsewhere,  he  at  once  gives  expression  to 
his  surprise  at  so  inconceivably  rapid  an  apostasy  to  another 
gospel  against  the  preacher  of  which  he  repeats  his  ana- 
thema, as  against  those  who  pervert  the  one  gospel  of  Christ 
preached  by  him  (i.  6-9)  j  from  which  uncompromising  firm- 
ness they  might  see  that  he  did  not  speak  only  to  please 
men  (i.  10).  He  justifies  his  right  to  speak  thus,  by  affirm- 
ing that  the  gospel  he  preached  was  not  received  from  man, 
but  was  revealed  to  him  by  Christ  (i.  11  f.).  He  shows  for 
example  that  prior  to  his  conversion  he  was  by  no  means 
disposed  to  take  any  notice  of  the  gospel  (comp.  §  13,  2),  ex- 
cept such  as  might  be  expected  from  the  hatred  that  ani- 
mated the  persecutor  of  the  Christians.  Moreover  when  it 
pleased  God  to  reveal  His  Son  to  him,  he  did  not  by  any 
means  seek  out  the  primitive  apostles  in  order  to  hear  more 
about  the  matter  from  them,  but  only  made  the  acquaintance 
of  Peter,  and  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  three  years 
afterwards,  on  the  occasion  of  a  fourteen  days'  visit  to  Jeru- 
salem (comp.  §  13, 3).  From  that  place  he  went  immediately 
to  Syria  and  Cilicia,  without  making  himself  known  even  by 
face  to  the  Churches  of  Judea,  in  which  the  other  apostles 
presumably  worked.  When,  notwithstanding,  these  Churches 
heard  that  he  preached  the  same  faith  that  he  had  formerly 
attacked,  and  thanked  God  on  his  account,  this  proved  that 

1  Though  persistently  misunderstood,  it  is  yet  an  undoubted  fact  that 
this  is  the  only  passage  that  can  be  interpreted  as  a  defence  of  his 
apostleship  ;  and  even  it  is  directed  not  against  those  who  attacked  the 
apostlesbip  in  itself,  but  against  the  assumption  that  it  was  conferred  on 
him  by  the  primitive  apostles.  Here,  too,  as  always  in  his  Gentile-apo- 
stolic preaching,  the  Apostle  sets  out  with  the  deliverance  of  believers  from 
the  destruction  that  threatened  them  together  with  the  whole  world  (§ 
15,  4,  note  1 ;  6,  note  2),  only  he  lays  such  stress  on  its  having  been 
mediated  by  the  death  of  Christ,  in  opposition  to  those  who  sought  to 
persuade  the  Galatians  that  some  additional  help  was  required  on  their 
part. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE   GALATIANS.  243 

his  gospel  was  from  the  beginning  no  other  than  that  of  the 
primitive  apostles,  and  that  he  had  not  received  it  from  them, 
but  by  direct  revelation  (i.  13-24).  It  was  not  until  fourteen 
years  after  the  beginning  of  his  independent  ministry  that 
he  found  it  necessary  to  lay  his  gospel,  as  he  had  preached 
it  among  the  Gentiles  (§  14,  3,  note  2),  before  the  primitive 
Church  and  its  authorities ;  and  although  he  had  been 
obliged  to  refuse  to  circumcise  even  Titus,  because  of  false 
brethren  who  wished  to  subject  his  Gentile  Christians  to  the 
yoke  of  the  law  (comp.  §  14,  4,  note  1),  his  gospel  was  then 
recognised  as  quite  sufficient  for  salvation,  and  the  Gentile 
mission,  for  which  the  authorities  at  Jerusalem  had  ad- 
mitted his  specific  qualification  and  calling,  was  solemnly 
entrusted  to  him  (ii.  1-10). 2  He  then  goes  on  to  tell  of  the 
occurrence  at  Antioch,  from  which  it  appears  how  he  had 
maintained  this  gospel  even  against  Peter,  when  the  latter, 
from  fear  of  the  more  rigid  Jewish  Christians  virtually 
denied  the  recognition  of  it  which  he  formerly  expressed  (ii. 
11-14,  17  f.).  But  when  he  gives  a  more  detailed  account  of 
the  ideas  to  which  he  then  gave  utterance  in  opposition  to 
Peter,  he  does  so  with  express  reference  to  the  importance  he 
now  attached  to  the  legal  question  as  a  principle.  He  shows 
how  the  recognition  of  the  inability  of  man  to  become  right- 
eous by  the  works  of  the  law,  a  priori  involved  in  faith  in  the 
Messiah,  must  necessarily  lead  to  the  seeking  of  justification 
by  faith  alone  and  not  by  works  at  all  (ii.  15  f.),  since  the 

*  Just  as  certainly  as  Gal.  ii.  7  f.  shows  that  the  recognition  of  an 
apostolic  position  equal  to  that  of  Paul  was  not  refused  to  him  (comp. 
§  14,  5,  note  1),  so  certainly  is  it  not  his  apostolic  dignity  that  Paul  here 
defends,  but  the  recognition  of  the  gospel  he  had  preached  to  the  Gen- 
tiles on  the  part  of  the  primitive  apostles,  which  he  proves,  because  he 
on  his  part  had  been  accused  of  perverting  the  gospel  received  from  the 
primitive  apostles  by  preaching  freedom  from  the  law.  Nor  can  there 
be  any  doubt  that  his  roaders  learn  through  him  for  the  first  time  what 
he  here  tells  of  his  relations  to  the  primitive  apostles,  so  that  this  point 
cannot  at  all  have  come  again  under  discussion  on  the  occasion  of  his 
second  visit  to  Galatia. 


244  ANALYSIS  OF  THE   EPISTLE. 

new  life  to  which  the  believer  attains  in  fellowship  with 
Christ,  presupposes  that  his  old  life,  under  the  law,  suf- 
fered death  (ii.  19  f.),  and  since  the  grace  of  God  in  which 
we  are  made  partakers  by  the  death  of  Christ  would  lose  its 
specific  significance  if  righteousness  could  by  any  means  be 
obtained  through  the  law  (ii.  21).  He  thus  lifts  the  ques- 
tion of  circumcision  and  the  law,  which  is  in  the  first  place 
purely  practical,  to  the  level  of  a  doctrinal  speculation  from 
which  its  incompatibility  with  the  fundamental  premisses  of 
the  doctrine  of  salvation  is  made  clear  (comp.  §  14,  6). 

5.  With  a  renewed  expression  of  surprise  that  they  should 
have  been  bewitched,  the  Apostle  refers  the  Galatians  to 
their  own  experience  of  salvation,  since  they  themselves 
knew  that  they  attained  the  highest  gift  of  their  present 
state  by  salvation,  viz.  the  Spirit  with  its  manifestations  of 
power,  not  by  virtue  of  the  works  of  the  law  but  by  virtue 
of  their  faith  (iii.  1-5).  Hence  it  is  clear  that  only  in  the 
same  way  can  they  attain  to  the  highest  and  final  fulness 
of  salvation.1  He  therefore  shows  how  the  promise  that  in 
Abraham  all  nations  should  be  blessed  implies  that  it  is  not 
the  sons  of  Abraham  after  the  flesh,  as  such,  who  are  to  be 
blessed,  in  conjunction  with  him  the  faithful  one,  but  those 
resembling  him  in  character,  who  like  him  are  justified  by 
faith  (iii.  6-9).  Moreover  the  law,  which  demands  works, 
owing  to  the  manifest  impossibility  of  its  perfect  fulfilment 
brought  a  curse  only  on  the  children  of  Abraham  after  the 
flush,  who  were  under  obligation  to  carry  it  out,  Christ  him- 
self being  made  a  curse  on  the  cross,  in  order  to  remit  this 
curse,  that  in  him  as  the  sole  mediator  of  salvation,  the 

1  In  the  discussion  that  follows,  the  question  is  not  of  justification ; 
for  it  was  Paul  who  first  applied  the  legal  question  in  a  doctrinal  form 
to  the  question  as  to  the  ground  of  justilication,  while  the  requirement 
of  the  Judaists  was  based  on  the  assumption  thnt  the  fulness  of  salvation 
promised  to  Abraham  end  his  seed  could  only  be  attained  through  in- 
corporation, by  means  of  circumcision  and  the  acceptance  of  the  law, 
the  race  that  sprang  from  him. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE   GALATlANS.  '245 

blessing  of  Abraham  (fulness  of  salvation)  might  come  on 
the  Gentiles  who  had  already  received  the  gift  of  the  Spirit 
by  faith  in  Him  (iii.  10-14).  The  law  that  was  given  so 
much  later  has  neither  power  nor  will  to  alter  the  fact  that 
fulness  of  salvation  is  granted  by  God  as  a  free  gift  of  grace 
by  means  of  the  promise  (iii.  15-19)  ;  its  aim  is  rather,  by 
always  urging  to  new  transgressions  and  thus  riveting  the 
chains  of  slavery  to  sin,  to  make  it  impossible  to  strive  for 
the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  by  individual  fulfilment  of  the 
law,  and  thus  itself  to  lead  to  Christ  in  order  to  the  recep- 
tion of  justification  by  faith  (iii.  20-24).  And  by  faith  we 
become  sons  of  God,  who,  because  incorporated  into  Christ 
by  baptism,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  belong  with  him  to 
the  seed  of  Abraham  to  whom  the  inheritance  was  promised 
(iii.  25-39).  The  heir  during  the  time  of  his  minority  may 
be  placed  under  tutelage,  which  always  brings  him  into 
slavish  dependence ;  but  even  the  children  of  Abraham,  who 
are  under  the  law,  are  entirely  set  freg  from  its  tutelage,  by 
the  sending  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  His  subjection  to  the  law, 
and  are  made  full  sons  of  God,  while  all  who  are  in  truth 
children  of  God,  are  certified  of  this  by  the  Spirit  sent  to 
them,  in  order  to  assure  them  of  the  heavenly  inheritance 
(iv.  1-7). 2  The  adoption  of  the  legal  worship  is  therefore 
simply  a  relapse  into  a  state  of  bondage,  such  as  that  to 
which  they  had  been  subject  during  their  religious  minority 
in  heathenism  (iv.  8-11).  He  urges  that,  as  a  thank-offer- 
ing towards  him,  who  from  love  to  the  heathen  had  become 
an  avo/xos,  they  should  henceforth,  like  him,  free  themselves 

2  The  discussion  which  constantly  goes  back  to  the  point  from  which 
it  started  (iii.  14 ;  iv.  6,  comp.  iii.  2,  5)  and  is  thus  shut  up  within  itself, 
endeavours  to  prove  from  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  promise  given 
in  the  Old  Testament  and  its  relation  to  the  law,  that  the  attainment  of 
the  fulness  of  salvation  is  and  remains  independent  of  the  law,  to  which 
likewise  the  heathen  were  necessarily  bound  so  soon  as  they  turned  to 
the  God  of  Israel  by  whom  it  had  been  given,  if  given  at  all,  in  order 
by  means  of  it  to  attain  righteousness  and  salvation,  and  therefore  the 
*  discussion  concludes  with  an  application  to  the  readers. 


246  ANALYSIS   OP  THE   EPISTLE. 

from  all  servile  bondage  to  the  law  ;  and  in  touching  words 
recalls  the  grateful  love  they  had  shown  him  at  his  first  visit 
when  he  preached  the  gospel  to  them  (iv.  12-15).  Had  he 
become  their  enemy,  becanse  during  his  second  stay  with 
them  he  had  told  them  tt  e  truth  with  earnestness  ?  He 
had  only  been  zealous  for  them,  and  still  continued  so, 
because  others  courted  them  in  order  to  gain  them  over  for 
themselves ;  he  travailed  again  in  birth  for  them,  that  in 
them  as  his  true  children  Christ  might  be  formed.  If  his 
severity  had  wounded  them,  he  would  change  his  voice,  that 
he  might  gain  by  tones  of  tenderest  love  what  his  severity 
had  been  unable  to  effect  (iv.  16-20). 

6.  After  this  outpouring  of  the  heart1  the  Apostle  collects 
his  thoughts  once  more,  in  order  to  throw  fresh  light  on  the 
main  theme  of  his  epistle  under  a  new  aspect.  Since  the 
Jndaists  had  naturally  appealed  to  the  Scriptures,  he  too, 
as  in  his  first  argument  (Hi.  6,  8),  makes  the  Scriptures 
his  starting-point,  and  by  an  allegorical  interpretation  of 
the  narrative  of  the  two  sons  of  Abraham,  proves  that  they 
are  the  sons  of  the  freewoman  and  therefore  children  of  the 
promise  and  heirs  after  the  manner  of  Isaac  (iv.  21-31).  He 
then  exhorts  them  to  remain  in  a  state  of  freedom,  and  not 
by  adopting  circumcision  to  take  on  again  the  yoke  of  the 
law,  since  all  the  righteousness  they  could  gain  from  the 
law  only  separated  them  from  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  in 
whom  circumcision  was  of  no  avail  but  only  faith  (v.  1-6). 
But  he  has  confidence  in  them,  that  they  will  recognise  of 
themselves  that  it  was  only  the  persuasion  of  men  that  had 
led  them  away  from  the  truth,  and  leaves  those  who  have 
troubled  them  to  the  judgment  of  God.  Remembering  how- 
ever that  these  latter  did  not  scruple  to  avail  themselves  of 
misrepresentation,  stating  that  he  himself  had  sometimes 

1  Whether  this  outpouring  (iv.  12-20)  be  counted  as  belonging  to  the 
preceding  division,  or  with  Holstcn  and  others  as  the  introduction  to 
what  follows,  is  essentially  a  matter  of  indifference. 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   GALATIANS.  247 

preached  circumcision,  he  utters  the  hard  sarcastic  saying, 
that  he  might  as  well  summon  these  disturbers  who  at- 
tached such  value  to  circumcision  as  the  beginning  of  self- 
mutilation,  to  make  eunuchs  of  themselves  (v.  7-12).  But 
the  reason  why  he  looks  at  the  question  in  this  latter  part  of 
the  epistle  under  the  aspect  of  Christian  freedom,  in  which 
he  would  fain  have  them  remain,  becomes  quite  clear  only  in 
what  follows.  For  he  finds  it  necessary  to  begin  by  stating 
that  this  freedom  excludes  all  yielding  to  the  flesh,  and 
includes  mutual  service  in  love  which  is  the  fulfilment  of 
the  whole  law.  But  it  is  plain  that  in  this  respect  even  the 
free-minded  had  failed  (v.  13-15).  He  therefore  points  out 
to  them  that  the  true  freedom  of  the  law  consists  in  walking 
according  to  the  Spirit,  which  continually  prevents  the  flesh 
from  reasserting  itself;  for  the  Spirit  only  excludes  the 
works  of  the  flesh,  of  which  he  has  told  them  before  that 
they  are  incompatible  with  the  blessed  aim  of  Christianity, 
while  it  begets  works  such  as  no  law  can  condemn ;  but  all 
true  Christians  must  have  crucified  the  flesh  and  must  walk 
in  accordance  with  the  Spirit  (v.  16-25).  With  unmistak- 
able reference  to  the  moral  deficiencies  that  the  dispute  on 
the  legal  question  had  disclosed  even  in  those  who  had  re- 
mained steadfast  (v.  26,  comp.  v.  15),  he  goes  on  to  show 
how  love  that  gently  corrects  the  erring  neighbour,  bearing 
his  weaknesses  in  the  consciousness  of  one's  own  fallibility, 
alone  fulfils  the  law  of  Christ,  so  that  it  is  necessary  that 
every  man  should  humbly  prove  himself,  and  be  concerned 
for  his  own  salvation,  taking  care  to  communicate  unto  him 
that  teacheth,  in  all  good  things  (vi.  1-6).  The  Apostle 
then  concludes  with  the  serious  admonition  to  sow  to  the 
Spirit  and  not  to  the  flesh,  never  to  weary  in  moral  effort, 
and  to  do  good,  especially  in  intercourse  with  those  who  are 
companions  in  faith  (vi.  7-10).  The  postscript  in  his  own 
hand  follows,  in  which  he  confronts  the  seducers  who  seek 
for  their  own  glory  to  win  the  Galatians  over  to  be  circum- 


248  PAUL   IN   EPHESDS. 

cised,  comparing  them  with  himself  who  gloried  only  in  the 
cross  of  Christ  to  whom  circumcision  availed  as  little  as  un- 
circumcision  in  opposition  to  a  new  creature,  including  in 
his  benediction  true,  i.e.  believing  Israel,  as  well  as  all  (un- 
circumcised)  who  walk  according  to  this  rule.  Referring  to 
the  marks  of  his  sufferings  which  he  bears  in  his  body  as  a 
servant  of  Christ,  he  concludes  with  the  touching  request 
not  to  give  him  further  trouble,  adding  a  short  benediction, 
without  any  greeting  to  themselves  or  others  (vi.  11  f.).* 

7.  Ephesus,  the  famous  ancient  capital  of  Ionia,  situated 
on  the  Cayster,  became  the  metropolis  of  the  province  of 
Asia  after  the  kingdom  of  Pergamos  was  transferred  to  the 
Romans  (B.C.  133).  The  city  was  splendid  and  extensive; 
it  carried  on  an  active  trade  and  possessed  a  great  theatre. 
The  old  temple  of  Diana,  situated  in  the  vicinity,  which  was 
burnt  down  on  the  night  that  Alexander  the  Great  was  born, 
had  since  been  rebuilt  with  greater  magnificence,  and  was 
counted  among  the  wonders  of  the  old  world.  The  image  of 
the  great  Diana  of  Ephesus,  preserved  there  from  a  very 
early  period,  was  reputed  to  have  fallen  from  heaven.  Small 
copies  of  the  temple,  the  manufacture  of  which  in  silver 
formed  an  active  branch  of  trade  in  Ephesus,  were  sold  in 
great  numbers,  being  set  up  in  the  houses  and  also  carried 
as  amulets  on  journeys.  Paul  had  already  begun  to  work 
among  the  Jews  of  the  place  on  his  first  journey  (§  15,  7), 

*  His  request  was  undoubtedly  fulfilled ;  we  have  no  historical  indi- 
cation that  he  ever  again  found  it  necessary  to  warn  his  Galatian 
Churches  against  relapsing  into  Jewish  legality.  This  is  certainly  an. 
intelligible  if  we  suppose  that  he  had  from  the  beginning  preached 
mainly  justification  by  faith  and  true  Christian  freedom,  arguing  it  out 
as  represented  in  this  epistle ;  but  can  be  understood,  if  this  epistle 
were  the  bold  stroke  in  which  for  the  first  time,  with  lucid  clearness, 
forcible  dialectic  and  lively  warmth,  he  explained  the  incompatibility  of 
the  Jndaistic  requirement  with  the  final  premisses  of  his  doctrine  of 
grace  and  salvation,  the  compatibility  of  the  latter  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment revelation  of  salvation  rightly  understood,  and  the  identity  of  true 
Christian  freedom  and  obligation  to  the  law  of  the  new  spiritual  life. 


APOLLOS  IN  EPHESUS.  249 

and  Aquila,  who  had  settled  there  with  his  wife  Priscilla, 
continued  his  work.  They  were  joined  by  an  Alexandrian 
Jew  named  Apollos,  whom  the  Acts  extol  on  account  of  his 
eloquence  and  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  (xviii.  24).  He 
belonged  to  a  circle  of  men  to  whom  the  designation  Johan- 
nine  disciples  is  commonly  given  but  erroneously,  since  their 
peculiarity  consisted  only  in  the  fact  that  with  them  the 
Johannine  baptism  in  practice  and  a  specific  Christian  bap- 
tism by  which  the  Holy  Ghost  was  received,  were  unknown.1 
But  Aquila  and  Priscilla  initiated  him  more  deeply  into  the 
customs  of  the  Church,  and  in  every  way  encouraged  him  in 
his  resolve  to  go  to  Achaia,  where  he  at  once  began  a  vigo- 
rous work,  partly  in  the  Corinthian  Churches  and  partly 
among  his  fellow-countrymen  (xviii.  25-28).  Paul  seems  to 
have  arrived  at  Ephesus  soon  afterwards  (xix.  1  ;  comp.  No. 
2).  The  common  view  that  this  was  the  beginning  of  a 
third  missionary  journey  on  his  part  is  quite  erroneous.  It 
is  quite  plain  that  in  leaving  Antioch  on  this  occasion  (xviii. 
23)  Paul  by  no  means  undertook  a  new  missionary  journey, 
but  changed  his  residence  permanently  from  Antioch  to 


1  Of  Apollos  we  are  told  that  he  fy  KaTjjxw&oi  rty  Mffo  rod  Kvplov  ical 
$uv  Ttp  iri>etifj.a.Ti  AdXet  ical  tSidaffKer  d/cpt/3u)s  T&  vepl  TOV  "Li)<rov  ;  and  since 
he  did  this  with  great  frankness  iu  the  synagogue  (xviii.  25  f.),  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  he  already  proclaimed  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and 
therefore  did  not,  like  tbe  Baptist  and  his  disciples,  still  look  for  a  Mes- 
siah (in  the  Jewish  national  sense).  So  too  the  men  to  whose  circle  he 
undoubtedly  belonged  (comp.  xviii.  25  with  xix.  3)  are  termed  naOrrral  ; 
but  they  know  nothing  yet  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (xix.  1  f.).  Paul,  how- 
ever, informs  them  that  the  baptism  of  repentance  was  only  designed  for 
those  who  should  first  believe  in  Him  who  followed  the  Baptist,  and 
therefore  could  not  suffice  for  those  who  already  believed  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  (xix.  4).  This  phenomenon,  no  longer  fully  apprehended  by  the 
author  of  the  Acts,  was  a  remarkable  one,  inasmuch  as  it  shows  traces 
of  a  Christianity  that  had  taken  form  without  connection  with  the 
primitive  apostles  or  the  primitive  Church.  Of  a  subsequent  baptism  of 
Apollos  we  find  no  mention,  for  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  were  already  visible 
in  his  inspired  activity  for  Jesus,  while  his  companions  were  certainly 
re-baptized  by  Paul,  that  by  their  own  experience  they  might  be  led  to 
understand  the  nature  of  Christian  baptism  (xix.  5  ff.). 


260  PAUL   IN   EPHESU9. 

Ephesus,  where,  in  the  centre  of  the  Chnrch  circle  that  he 
had  founded,  he  was  equally  near  to  the  Galatian  and  Mace- 
donian-Greek Churches.  There  he  could  again  carry  on  his 
trndo  in  conjunction  with  Aquila,  supporting  himself  by  his 
own  work  (xx.  33  f.)  ;  and  owing  to  the  busy  commerce  of 
the  city,  his  ministry  in  that  place  would  he  important  for 
the  whole  province  of  Asia  (xix.  10),  without  the  necessity 
of  his  making  a  missionary  journey  through  it. 

It  is  only  in  connection  with  this  account  of  Apollos  that  the  Acts  go 
on  to  speak  of  the  way  in  which  Paul  first  led  his  like-minded  associates 
to  an  understanding  of  specific  Christian  baptism  (xix.  1-7).  What 
is  of  far  greater  importance  is  the  fact  that  Paul  made  every  effort  in 
order  to  prepare  a  permanent  place  for  the  gospel  among  the  Jews  who 
were  settled  there,  and  by  no  means  without  success.  But  after  three 
months  he  found  it  necessary,  on  account  of  their  hostility,  to  separate 
the  Church  entirely  from  the  synagogue,  and  to  select  the  auditorium  of 
Tyraimus  a  Greek  rhetorician,  as  the  place  of  his  regular  preaching, 
and  that  was  certainly  the  beginning  of  an  influential  Qentile-apnstolic 
ministry  of  far-reachiug  success  (xix.  8-10),  of  which  unfortunately  the 
Acts  have  only  preserved  some  fragmentary  outlines  (xix.  11-20).  But 
Paul  himself  boasts  of  its  having  been  visibly  blessed,  though  he  does 
not  conceal  the  fact  that  it  roused  many  adversaries  agaiust  him  (1  Cor. 
xvi.  9).  It  is  certain  that  the  latter  are  not  to  be  found  solely  among 
the  unbelieving  Jews  (Acts  xx.  19),  who  were  able  here,  as  elsewhere,  to 
stir  up  the  heathen  population  against  him.  His  life  there  seems  to  Liiu 
like  a  constant  combat  with  wild  beasts  (1  Cor.  xv.  32),  and  once  at  least 
he  must  have  been  directly  threatened  with  death,  from  which  only  the 
devotion  of  his  hosts,  at  the  risk  of  their  own  lives,  saved  him  (Bom. 
xvi.  4). 

The  Acts  compute  his  activity  subsequent  to  the  breach 
with  the  synagogue,  at  two  years  (xix.  20)  ;  but  with  the 
three  preceding  months  (xix.  8)  and  the  time  he  still  re- 
mained after  the  sending  away  of  Timothy  (xix.  22),  he  must 
have  spent  three  almost  uninterrupted  years  in  that  place 
(xx.  31).*  To  the  first  of  these  years  the  Galatian  Epistle 
belongs. 

*  The  chronological  estimate  of  these  2-3  years  is,  of  course,  still 
more  uncertain  than  that  of  the  years  spent  in  Corinth  (§  15,  6),  since  we 
have  no  point  of  attachment,  and  do  not  even  know  how  long  he  st  .y>  1 
on  at  Antioch  in  the  interval.  According  to  the  usual  computation,  tue 
result  arrived  at  is  from  the  years  65-57  or  perhaps  5G-68. 


THE   COBINTHIAN  DISOBDERS.  251 

§  19.    THE  CORINTHIAN  DISORDERS. 

1.  To  the  time  of  the  Apostle's  stay  at  Ephesus  belong  the 
heavy  cares  prepared  for  him  by  the  development  of  the 
Corinthian  Church.  Apollos  indeed  arrived  there  not  long 
after  him  and  worked  in  the  spirit  of  the  Apostle  being 
blessed  in  his  ministry  (1  Cor.  iii.  6).  The  fact  that  towards 
the  end  of  his  activity  at  Ephesus  the  Apostle  frequently 
besought  him  to  return  to  Corinth,  shows  that  after  his 
former  efficiency  Paul  expected  only  good  to  result  (xvi. 
12).  But  Church- life  at  Corinth  had  suffered  much  in- 
jury from  the  first.  It  must  have  been  on  the  occasion 
of  a  trip  that  Paul  made  from  Ephesus,  of  whose  object 
we  have  no  knowledge,  that  he  visited  Corinth  in  passing 
(xvi.  7)  ;  but  even  at  that  time  he  had  no  pleasure  in  the 
Church.  He  complains  that  he  had  been  humbled  (by 
the  circumstances  in  which  he  found  the  Church),  and  had 
been  obliged  to  make  them  sorry  (2  Cor.  xii.  21,  ii.  1).  It  is 
true  that,  remembering  possibly  how  little  his  severity  had 
availed  in  Galatia,  he  had  at  that  time  gone  to  them  in 
gentleness,  and  had  hesitated  to  take  vigorous  measures  (x. 
1,  10)  ;  but  even  then  it  had  been  necessary  to  threaten  them 
with  relentless  punishment  if  the  evil  were  not  put  away 
(xiii.  2).1  It  is  not  improbable  that  even  at  this  visit  it  was 

1  This  visit  of  Paul  to  Corinth  has,  it  is  true,  been  contested  by  Lange, 
Baur  (Theol.  Jahrb.,  1850,  2),  Fr.  Marker  (Stud.  «.  Krit.,  1872,  1)  and 
recently  again  by  Heinrici  (in  Meyer's  Kommentar,  1881,  83),  and  Hilgen- 
feld ;  but  2  Cor.  xii.  14,  xiii.  1  f .,  so  directly  imply  such  a  visit,  that  in- 
genuity alone  can  explain  it  away.  It  is  certainly  strange  that,  apart 
from  1  Cor.  xvi.  7,  where  it  must  be  conceded  that  a  reference  to  the  second 
visit  does  not  necessarily  occur,  the  first  epistle  makes  no  allusion  to 
it,  neither  in  iv.  21,  where  Paul  likewise  threatens  to  come  to  them  with 
severity,  nor  in  chap,  v., -where  he  speaks  of  those  very  sins  of  unchastity 
which  were  certainly  his  main  ground  of  dissatisfaction  even  at  that  time. 
For  this  reason,  Ewald,  0.  Eylau  (zur  Chronologie  der  Corintherbriefe, 
Landsberg  a.  d.  W.,  1873),  Weizsacker  (Jahrb.  fur  deutsche  Theol.,  1873, 
4 ;  1876,  4),  and  Mangold,  have  tried  to  put  this  visit  between  the  first 
and  second  Epistle,  which,  according  to  all  the  statements  of  the  latter, 


252  STATE   OF  THE   CORINTHIAN  CHUftCH. 

necessary  for  Paul  to  denounce  sins  of  unchastity  above  all 
(comp.  2  Cor.  xii.  21,  xiii.  2)  ;  for  the  first  epistle,  which 
Paul  probably  wrote  to  the  Church  soon  after  his  return, 
and  which  has  unfortunately  been  lost  to  us,  evidently  re- 
ferred to  this  form  of  sin  (comp.  §  16,  2).  In  it,  as  on  a 
similar  occasion  in  the  second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians, 
he  gave  direction  that  all  intercourse  should  be  broken  off 
with  the  unrepentant  sinners  in  the  Church.  But  they 
either  did  not  or  would  not  understand  him  ;  and  under  the 
pretext  that  Paul  wished  to  prohibit  all  intercourse  with 
Gentile  sinners,  they  consoled  themselves  with  the  impracti- 
cability of  such  separation  (1  Cor.  v.  9  ff.).9 

2.  The  main  reason  why  Church-life  at  Corinth  could  not 
attain  to  healthy  development  manifestly  lay  in  the  fact  that 
the  young  Gentile  Christians  neither  could  nor  would  give 
up  close  social  intercourse  with  their  unbelieving  country- 
men. Afterwards,  as  before,  they  received  invitations  from 
them  to  feasts  (1  Cor.  x.  27),  and  did  not  even  scruple  to 
take  part  in  the  sacrificial  feasts  of  the  heathen  (x.  21  f.), 
where  they  were  certain  to  meet  with  renewed  temptation  to 
wantonness  and  lust.  How  little  they  regarded  themselves 
as  absolved  from  their  former  relations,  is  clearly  shown  by 

enabling  us  to  follow  the  Apostle  step  by  step,  is  quite  impossible.  But 
it  may  be  presumed  that  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  which  has 
been  lost  to  us,  was  connected  with  this  visit ;  and  that  the  sole  reason 
of  its  being  mentioned  in  our  second  epistle  is  that  in  it  Paul  made 
immediate  preparation  for  a  new  visit.  There  is  no  ground  for  regarding 
this  visit,  with  Anger  and  others,  only  as  the  return  from  a  longer  trip 
during  the  one  aud  a  half  year's  stay  at  Corinth,  or  for  putting  it,  with 
Neander,  into  the  stay  at  Antioch  (Acts  xviii.  22). 

1  According  to  this,  the  substance  of  2  Cor.  vi.  14-vii.  1,  in  which 
section  A.  H.  Franke  (Stud.  u.  /frit.,  1884,  4),  after  the  example  of  Hil- 
genfeld,  endeavours  to  find  a  remnant  of  this  epistle,  would  certainly 
approximately  correspond  to  what  the  latter  must  have  contained.  Bat 
there  is  no  cogent  reason  for  regarding  this  section  as  an  interpolation, 
nor  is  there  any  probability  in  favour  of  the  supposition  that  a  portion 
of  that  epistle  should  have  got  into  our  second  one  at  all,  much  lesg 
into  that  particular  passage  of  it. 


THE   COEINTHIAN  DISOEDEBS.  253 

tlie  circumstance  that  they  did  not  hesitate  to  take  their 
private  transactions  with  Christian  brethren  before  heathen 
tribunals  and  there  to  carry  on  their  lawsuits.  Owing  to 
this  close  intercourse  with  their  heathen  fellow-countrymen, 
the  views  of  morality  prevalent  with  the  latter  and  the 
universal  corruption  of  morals  in  which  they  were  involved 
could  not  fail  to  exercise  a  contaminating  influence  on  the 
Church.  Hence  it]  was  that  sins  of  unchastity  gave  the 
Apostle  far  more  trouble  here  than  in  Thessalonica.  The 
predominant  (Gentile-Christian)  part  of  the  Church  had 
moreover  carried  with  them  out  of  the  past  the  idea  that 
sexual  intercourse  outside  marriage  was  just  as  much  the 
satisfaction  of  a  natural  desire  as  the  appeasing  of  hunger 
by  food  (vi.  12  f.),  which  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
morality.  It  had  not  been  the  intention  of  the  Apostle 
simply  to  forbid  unchastity  by  the  Divine  command,  since 
this  would  have  led  back  to  the  legal  standpoint ;  but  he 
had  left  it  to  the  Holy  Spirit  to  give  the  Christians  the  true 
guiding  principle  for  their  conduct  in  this  respect,  and  had 
hoped  that  a  purer  moral  feeling  would  thus  result  of  itself. 
Nor  was  a  strong  moral  reaction  by  any  means  wanting  in 
the  Church ;  this,  however,  did  not  yet  lead  to  a  more  com- 
plete victory  over  the  deeply-rooted  propensity  to  sins  of  the 
flesh,  but  only  to  an  external  asceticism  which  threw  doubt 
on  all  sexual  intercourse  even  in  marriage  (vii.  3,  5),  parti- 
cularly in  the  case  of  a  husband  or  wife  who  had  remained 
heathen  (vii.  12  ff.),  and  discussed  such  questions  as  whether 
a  man  might  marry  his  daughter  (vii.  36  IE.),  or  whether 
second  marriage  at  all  was  permissible  (vii.  39).  In  the 
same  way  opposition  to  those  who  at  the  sacrificial  feasts  of 
the  heathen  defiled  themselves  with  idolatrous  abominations, 
led  to  a  scrupulous  anxiety  according  to  which  all  eating  of 
flesh  offered  to  idols  was  regarded  as  defiling  and  therefore 
against  conscience  (viii.  7),  even  what  was  bought  in  the 
market  being  so  regarded  (x.  20).  It  by  no  means  appears 


254  STATE   OF  THE   CORINTHIAN   CHURCH. 

that  this  reaction  took  place  only  in  Jewish-Christian  circles 
and  rested  on  legal  motives;  it  was  among  Gentile  Chris- 
tians themselves  that  the  most  complete  breach  with  the 
past  coald  in  this  way  be  hoped  for.  But  for  that  very 
reason  the  reaction  had  no  influence  on  the  majority  of  the 
Church  ;  views  were  mutually  opposed,  and  an  actual  moral 
reorganization  of  Christian  life  was  not  arrived  at.  Only  in 
this  way  can  it  be  explained  that  the  Church  was  powerless 
even  to  develop  the  moral  energy  to  rid  itself  of  the  most 
flagrant  sinners  (comp.  No.  1).  A  case  occurred  where  a 
man  had  married  his  own  step-mother,  who  had  either  been 
left  by  her  husband  or  had  run  away  from  him,  and  appa- 
rently while  his  father  was  still  alive  (1  Cor.  v.  1 ;  comp.  2 
Cor.  vii.  12),  and  was  therefore  living  in  open  incest.  But 
intercourse  with  the  heathen  was  not  without  influence  even 
on  the  life  of  faith.  We  have  already  seen  how  offensive 
the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  continued  to  be 
to  them  (Acts  xvii.  32 ;  comp.  §  17,  2)  ;  the  Christians  were 
frequently  ridiculed  on  account  of  this  doctrine,  and  had 
often  enough  been  obliged  to  listen  to  the  current  arguments 
against  it,  being  at  length  not  indisposed  to  give  it  up 
(1  Cor.  xv.  12),  especially  as  in  point  of  fact  it  seemed  im- 
possible for  them  to  form  an  idea  of  it  that  was  not  open 
to  contradiction  (xv.  35) -1 

3.  The  dark  side  of  the  Corinthian  Church-life,  like  the 
bright  side,  undoubtedly  had  its  roots  in  the  specific  Hellenic 
character  of  the  Church  in  that  place.  The  fact  that  such 

1  It  is  neither  conceivable  that  Sadducean  influences  made  themselves 
felt  in  the  predominantly  Gentile  Christian  Church,  nor  that  it  was  the 
influence  of  the  philosophical  culture  of  Corinth  that  gaye  rise  to  doubts 
regarding  the  resurrection,  since  the  majority  of  the  Church  did  tiot  be- 
long to  the  cultivated  classes  (1  Cor.  i.  26  f ),  and  that  Paul  intimates 
nothing  as  to  the  motives  of  these  doubts  that  goes  beyond  the  most 
superficial  objections  of  common  sense.  The  idea  of  a  spiritualizing 
.•nor,  originating  in  Christian  soil  (comp.  2  Tim.  ii.  18)  is  entirely  alien 
to  the  circumstances  of  the  young  Christian  Church. 


THE   COEINTHIAN  DISOBDERS.  255 

an  abundant  fulness  of  gifts  of  grace  was  poured  out  on  this 
Church,  was  in  keeping  with  their  spiritual  activity  and 
lively  susceptibility  (1  Cor.  i.  5  f.).  Here  unquestionably 
lay  their  danger ;  for  these  gifts  gave  rise  to  inordinate 
vanity  and  ambition,  the  passion  so  characteristic  of  the 
Hellenic  nature.  Contention  arose  as  to  the  respective  value 
of  this  or  that  spiritual  gift,  especially  as  to  whether  the 
ecstatic  speaking  with  tongues  was  to  be  preferred  to  the 
gift  of  prophecy;  those  who  were  supposed  to  be  more 
highly  endowed  were  envied,  while  the  less  remarkable  gifts 
were  despised.  One  did  not  allow  another  to  speak,  all 
spoke  together,  so  that  the  abundance  of  gifts  only  tended  to 
the  confusion  of  the  Church-meeting,  instead  of  promoting 
its  edification  (comp.  chap.  xiv.).  Even  the  women  who  as 
a  matter  of  course  felt  their  natural  gifts  stimulated  and 
enhanced  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  were  drawn  into  this  pro- 
cedure ;  they  too  wanted  to  speak  and  to  assert  themselves 
in  the  Church,  if  only  under  the  pretext  of  asking  questions 
and  thus  publicly  proving  their  interest  in  religion  (xiv. 
34  f.).  For  this  purpose  it  was  necessary,  that  in  opposition 
to  the  chaste  custom  of  antiquity,  they  should  lay  aside  the 
veils  that  covered  them  in  assemblies  of  men  (xi.  5,  10), 
and  that  again  only  supplied  new  food  for  vanity.  But  this 
worldliness  that  was  thrusting  itself  into  religious  meetings 
was  most  objectionable  when  the  love-feasts  were  concerned. 
Here  ample  occasion  was  given  for  the  formation  of  coteries, 
destroying  thereby  the  unity  of  the  life  of  the  Church  (xi. 
18  f.).  The  more  largely  the  great  majority  of  the  Church 
was  composed  of  the  lower  classes,  the  more  natural  it  was 
that  the  more  cultivated  and  well-to-do  should  sever  them- 
selves from  it.  Moreover  the  latter  wished  themselves  to 
enjoy  the  richer  provision  they  had  brought  to  the  feast ; 
and  while  some  ate  and  drank  immoderately,  others  were 
hungry.  By  this  means  the  religious,  as  well  as  the  social 
character  of  the  love-feasts,  was  destroyed  (xi.  21  f.),  and 


256  STATE   OF  THE   CORINTHIAN   CHURCH. 

Paul  takes  the  matter  so  much  in  earnest  as  to  see  Divine 
punishment  for  this  profanation  of  the  sacred  meal,  in 
numerous  cases  of  sickness  and  death  that  occurred  just  at 
that  time  (xi.  30).  The  question  naturally  arises,  why  did  not 
the  Church-rulers  take  measures  long  before  against  these 
profligate  doings  ?  Yet  we  find  no  indication  of  such  a 
thing  having  been  attempted.  Nor  are  they  anywhere  held 
responsible  for  the  reform  of  these  abuses.  From  this  it 
is  clear  beyond  doubt  that  the  Church  at  Corinth  had  no 
Church-rulers  who  were  responsible  for  the  guidance  of 
meetings  and  the  practice  of  chastity.  Paul  had  evidently 
thought  it  better  to  allow  the  democratic  bias  of  the  Hellenic 
spirit  full  scope  in  the  development  of  Church-life,  in  order 
that  it  might  be  entirely  in  sympathy  with  him.  It  is 
certain  therefore  that  the  Church  as  a  body  had  autonomous 
control  over  its  own  affairs  even  the  practice  of  chastity  (v. 
4)  ;  but  there  were  some  who  by  voluntary  services  done  to 
the  Church  had  gained  the  honourable  privilege  of  having 
these  recognised  and  at  the  same  time  the  right  to  claim 
obedience  in  certain  given  cases  (xvi.  15-18).  Fruitful  as 
this  may  have  been  in  stirring  up  and  strengthening  the 
spirit  of  the  Church,  it  was  the  more  hazardous  when  the 
contending  elements  increased  in  violence  (No.  2)  and  the 
disorders  prevalent  in  meetings  shattered  the  life  of  the 
Church. 

We  have  no  knowledge  whatever  of  the  fundamental  principles  which 
Paul  followed  in  the  external  organization  of  his  Churches.  There  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  he  organized  those  that  he  planted  on  the  first 
missionary  journey  with  Barnabas  after  the  model  of  the  synagogue 
(Acts  xiv.  23),  nor  that  the  Ephesian  Church  had  its  own  presbytery 
after  the  Church  had  been  separated  from  the  synagogue  (xix.  9,  xx. 
17).  But  it  is  evident  that  the  Macedonian  Churches  had  already  a 
different  kind  of  organization  in  the  rulers  at  Thessalonica  (1  Thess.  v. 
12;  comp.  §  16,  4),  the  bishops  and  deacons  at  Philippi  (Phil.  i.  1), 
although  we  are  without  more  specific  knowledge  of  their  privileges 
and  duties.  We  neither  know  when  this  organization  was  introduced, 
nor  whether  Paul  had  a  direct  share  in  it.  We  learn  as  little  of 


THE   COBINTHIAN  PAETIES.  257 

Church-rulers  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  as  from  the  Corinthian 
Epistles.  That  the  olda  ^retpava  (xvi.  15)  did  not  consist  of  chosen  offi- 
cials of  the  Church  endowed  with  express  privileges  and  a  definite  circle 
of  duties,  follows  indisputably  not  only  from  the  nature  of  the  case  but 
also  from  the  els  Sicucdvlav  Ira^a?  ea.vrofo.  Nor  has  Paul  any  knowledge 
of  exclusive  holders  of  the  gifts  of  Kvpepvtfcreis  and  dm\-f)\l/eis  (xii.  28), 
distinguished  by  an  official  title,  which  is  not  however  inconsistent  with 
the  fact  that  the  Church-meeting  charged  certain  individuals  who  were 
thus  endowed,  with  the  care,  under  its  guidance  and  control,  o!  certain 
necessary  functions.  How  far  in  so  doing  the  traditional  forms  of  re- 
ligious association,  that  must  have  supplied  the  frame  for  the  political 
existence  of  the  Christian  Church  were  adhered  to,  can  no  longer  be  de- 
termined (comp.  Heinrici,  Zeitschr.  f.  wiss.  Theol.,  1876,4;  77,1  and 
das  erste  Sendschreiben  des  Ap.  Paulus  an  die  Cor.,  Berlin,  1880).  But 
it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  relations  of  Church-life  were  still  very 
simple,  nor  could  it  be  reasonably  disputed  even  by  Holsten  that  there 
was  only  one  Church  chest.  On  the  other  hand  we  are  told  incidentally 
that  in  the  Church  of  the  port  of  Corinth  in  Cenchrea,  which  was  cer- 
tainly but  small,  there  was  a  deaconess  (Rom.  xvi.  1  f.) ;  and  although 
her  designation  as  irpzaraTts  has  been  supposed  to  point  to  a  kind  of 
patronage,  yet  the  iro\\uv  teal  lyitoO  makes  it  quite  impossible  that  any- 
thing can  be  meant  but  actual  care,  such  as  in  the  exercise  of  her  calling 
she  had  devoted  to  many. 

4.  This  danger  had  reached  its  culminating  point  when, 
after  the  departure  of  Apollos  from  Corinth,  owing  to 
which  the  Apostle  had  not  yet  heard  anything  of  the 
movement,  dissension  broke  out  in  the  Church  respecting 
the  prerogatives  of  the  various  teachers,  that  directly 
threatened  the  Church  with  dissolution  into  several  parties. 
The  movement  probably  originated  with  the  followers  of 
Apollos,  who  preferred  the  more  philosophic  and  trained 
rhetorical  preaching  of  the  Alexandrian  to  the  manner  of 
Paul,  which  was  simpler  in  form  and  substance,  and  who 
now,  as  disciples  of  Apollos,  formed  themselves  into  a  sort 
of  party.1  But  the  immediate  result  of  this  was,  that  others 

1  It  is  quite  without  reason  when  Heinrici  still  maintains  that  Apollos 
attached  greater  weight  to  baptism  and  its  personal  application.  The 
undisturbed  relation  of  Paul  to  Apollos  (1  Cor.  xvi.  12)  excludes  all  idea 
of  a  fundamental  opposition  on  the  part  of  his  disciples  to  the  Pi  aline 
majority  of  the  Church. 


258  THE   CORINTHIAN  PARTIES. 

in  the  Church,  who  had  had  another  teacher  than  Paul, 
grouped  themselves  similarly  round  the  name  of  their 
teacher ;  thus  arose  the  party  of  the  disciples  of  Cephas,  who, 
to  judge  by  the  way  in  which  Paul  recognises  in  Cephas 
only  such  pre-eminence  as  all  could  and  should  appropriate 
to  themselves  (iii.  22),  cannot  have  been  in  fundamental 
opposition  to  him.8  The  true  followers  of  the  actual  founder 
of  the  Church  had  finally  no  alternative  but  to  form  them- 
selves likewise  into  a  kind  of  Pauline  party  (i.  12).  The 
extent  of  this  Corinthian  division  into  parties  has  generally 
been  very  much  over-estimated;  the  parties  were  by  no 
means  such  in  our  sense  of  the  word,  as  distinguished  by  dif- 
ferent views  and  aims.  The  continued  attempts  to  attribute 
to  one  or  other  of  these  parties  all  that  our  first  Epistle 
intimates  as  to  differences  of  opinion,  errors  and  doubts, 
have  utterly  failed.  The  natural  consequence  of  such 
attempts  has  been  that  almost  every  trait  has  been  attri- 
buted sometimes  to  one  party  and  sometimes  to  another; 
the  picture  thus  formed  of  each  individual  party  being  dif- 
ferent with  each  expositor.  The  adherents  of  the  respective 
parties  cannot  have  made  nationality  the  basis  of  their 
separation,  since  there  must  certainly  have  been  Jewish 

*  Consequently,  since  the  disciples  of  Cephas  cannot  have  adopted  this 
name  because  they  represented  certain  fundamental  principles  or  doc- 
trines of  Peter  in  opposition  to  those  of  Paul,  the  question  arises  how 
did  it  happen  that  so  great  a  number  of  disciples  of  Cephas  should  have 
been  found  in  Corinth,  since  only  individuals  who  had  been  converted  by 
Peter  in  Judea  could  have  gone  to  settle  in  that  city.  But  in  this  case 
what  Dionysius  of  Corinth  relates  of  a  ministry  of  Peter  in  tbat  place 
(ap.  Euseb.,  Hitt.  Eccl.,  2,  25)  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  an  arbitrary 
inference  from  1  Cor.  i.  12,  though  that  is  commonly  done.  It  is  cer- 
tainly an  error  on  his  part  to  regard  him  as  associated  with  Paul  in  the 
founding  of  the  Church,  but  it  cannot  be  affirmed  that  he  did  not  come 
here  on  one  of  his  missionary  journeys  to  the  Diaspora,  as  mentioned  by 
Paul  in  ix.  5,  bringing  with  him  a  large  number  of  Jewish  Christian 
members  of  the  Church  ;  the  very  way  in  which  Paul  speaks  particularly 
of  his  missionary  journeys  is  strongly  in  favour  of  this  view,  as  Harnack 
has  lately  acknowledged. 


THE   COBINTHIAN   PAETIES.  259 

Christians  among  the  disciples  both  of  Paul  and  Apollos ; 
while  it  is  not  unlikely  that  among  the  disciples  of  Cephas 
there  were  also  some  uncircamcised  individuals,  who  even 
as  proselytes,  adhered  to  the  synagogue.  It  undoubtedly 
follows  from  iv.  6-8,  that  each  one  asserted  the  pre-eminence 
of  his  teacher  over  the  others ;  and  believed  he  had  already 
attained  the  full  height  of  Christian  development  by  what  he 
had  received  from  him.  The  Hellenic  spirit,  always  accus- 
tomed to  party-strife,  thus  found  food  for  its  subjectivity, 
its  vanity,  and  its  love  of  contention.  Of  an  official  separ- 
ation of  the  Church,  there  was  no  word  as  yet;  nor  had  the 
Church  as  such  written  to  the  Apostle  (vii.  1),  who  invari- 
ably speaks  of  the  Church-meeting  as  united  (xi.  20,  xiv. 
23).  The  worst  feature  in  the  case  was  that  Paul  was  thus 
thrust  farther  and  farther  from  the  position  of  the  acknow- 
ledged highest  authority  in  the  Church  into  that  of  a  party 
leader. 

5.  The  confusion  in  the  picture  that  has  been  drawn  of 
this  party-strife,  is  due  to  the  circumstance  that  Paul  seems 
to  place  a  fourth  party  by  the  side  of  the  three  already 
named,  the  watchword  of  whose  adherents  was,  eyw  (et//.i) 
Xptorrov  (1  Cor.  i.  12)  .l  Eichhorn  regarded  this  as  the 
neutral  party  which,  according  to  Schott  and  Bleek,  was 
expressly  approved  by  the  Apostle  himself.  And  in  order  to 
justify  the  equality  with  the  others  that  is  manifestly  attri- 
buted to  it,  it  was  generally  held  that  this  party  too  as- 
serted its  adherence  to  Christ  in  some  exclusive  way.  But 
this  view  that  has  become  prevalent,  particularly  with  more 
recent  commentators,  as  Biickert,  Meyer,  Hofmann,  and 
Heinrici,  and  is  also  represented  by  Hausrath  and  Neander 

1  An  attempt  was  already  made  by  Chrysostom,  and  recently  again  by 
Mayerhoff  (Hist.  krit.  Kinl.  in  die  petrin.  Schriften,  Hamb.,  1835),  to 
make  these  words  refer  only  to  what  Paul  said  in  opposition  to  the  three 
parties,  and  by  Rabiger  to  regard  them  as  the  watchword  equally  claimed 
by  all  three ;  but  this  cannot  be  carried  out  in  opposition  to  the  simple 
wording,  which  puts  it  quite  on  a  par  with  the  other  three. 


260  THE   CORINTHIAN  PAIITIES. 

(in  his  later  years)  gives  no  vivid  picture  of  the  party  and 
has  no  support  whatever  in  the  epistle.  The  same  thing 
may  be  said  of  all  attempts  to  form  an  a  priori  conception 
of  the  peculiar  character  of  the  party  in  question. 

Hag  and  Bertholdt  following  Storr,  regarded  them  as  disciples  of 
James,  calling  themselves  by  the  name  of  Christ  because  James  was  a 
brother  of  the  Lord ;  Osiander  in  his  Commentary  (Stuttg.,  1847,  68),  as 
Ebionites,  who  looked  on  Christ  only  as  a  teacher ;  while  Ewald  makes 
them  adherents  of  an  Essene-miuded  teacher,  who,  taking  a  particular 
evangelical  writing  as  his  authority,  disapproved  of  marriage  after  the 
example  of  Christ.  Neander,  on  the  other  hand,  regarded  them  (at  least 
at  first)  as  Gentile-Christians,  who  looked  upon  Christ  as  a  new  So- 
crates, and  rejected  Apostolic  tradition  as  alloyed  with  Judaism ;  while 
Guericke  and  Olshausen  adopt  the  same  opinion.  Ja'ger  too  supposed 
them  to  be  at  least  a  combination  of  Jewish  Christianity  and  Greek 
learning  (Erklarung  d.  Briefe  Pauli  an  die  Kor.  out  dem  Gesichtspunkt 
der  vier  Part.,  Tubing. ,  1838) ;  Goldhorn  (in  lllgeu's  Zdtschr.  f.  hitt. 
Theol.,  1840,  2)  and  Dahne  (die  Chritlutpartei,  Halle,  1842)  sought  to 
prove  that  they  were  characterized  by  a  Jewish -Alexandrian  philosophy 
of  religion,  while  Kniewel  (Eccl.  Cor.  vetutt.  ditseraione*  et  turbtr, 
Gedan.,  1841)  looked  on  them  as  precursors  of  the  Gnostics,  a  conclusion 
to  which  Neander  had  already  come.  Since  the  New  Testament  begin- 
nings of  Gnosticism  are  certainly  connected  with  theosophic  Jewish 
Christianity,  this  view  has  some  affinity  with  that  of  Schenkel  (De  Reel. 
Cor.  primava.,  Basel,  1838,  comp.  das  Christusbild  der  Apottel.,  Leipz., 
1879),  which  tried  to  find  an  actual  hold  in  our  epistles,  making  the 
polemic  of  the  second  refer  to  them,  although  it  never  attacks  a  party 
in  the  Church  but  only  individual  intruders.  He  supposed  them  to  be 
theosophically  educated  Jewish  Christians,  who  looked  on  their  relation 
to  Christ  as  mediated  by  visions  and  revelations,  as  contrasted  with  the 
apostolic  mediation;  and  de  Wette,  Lutterbeck,  Grimm  and  Niedner 
(comp.  also  Wieseler,  tur  Oetch.  d.  NTlichen  Schrift.,  Leipz.,  1880) 
assented. 

It  is  the  great  merit  of  Baur  that  here  too  he  has  been 
the  first  to  put  the  inquiry  on  a  firm  historical  basis  (comp. 
Tubinger  Zeitschr.  f.  Theol.,  1831,  1 ;  1836,  4),  since  he  suc- 
ceeded in  definitely  combining  the  catchword  of  1  Cor.  i.  12 
with  that  to  which  Paul  alludes  in  2  Cor.  x.  7,  thus  finding 
in  the  former  passage  the  Jewish-Christian  opponents  of  the 


THE  CORINTHIAN  PARTIES.  261 

apostles,  who  are  combated  in  the  second  Epistle.  In 
this  way  he  was  led  to  unite  the  disciples  of  Cephas  with 
those  of  Christ,  as  Chr.  Schmidt  after  his  own  method  had 
already  done,  since  both  parties  put  the  authority  of  the 
primitive  apostles,  as  of  those  who  by  personal  intercourse 
with  Christ  were  alone  qualified,  in  opposition  to  Paul,  and 
are  said  to  have  rejected  his  apostleship ;  at  least  the  ot 
Xptorov  mustahve  been  the  heads  of  the  party.  Billroth 
(in  his  Komm.,  Leipz.,  1833),  Credner  and  Reuss  tried  to 
separate  them  as  the  violent  party,  more  definitely  from  the 
Petrines ;  while  Becker  (die  Parteiung  in  der  Gem.  zu  Cor., 
Alton.,  1842)  on  the  contrary  regarded  them  as  the  milder 
party,  whose  members,  because  converted  by  Paul,  could  not 
have  joined  the  Petrines.  It  was  Beyschlag  (De  Eccl.  Cor. 
Factions  Christ.,  Halle,  1861,  comp.  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1865,  2 ; 
1871,  4)  who  first  emphatically  maintained  that  the  very 
existence  in  Corinth  of  a  Cephas  party,  directly  distinguished 
from  the  Jewish-Christian  opponents  of  the  Apostle,  and 
evidently  regarded  by  Paul  (iii.  22)  as  being  in  no  material 
opposition  to  himself,  shows  most  clearly  that  the  primitive 
apostles  themselves  did  not  stand  in  hostile  relation  to  Paul 
(comp.  also  Klopper,  Exeg.  Jcrit.  Untersuchungen  itber  den 
2.  Brief  des  Paulus  an  die  Gem.  zu  Corinth.,  Gott.,  1869  ; 
Comm.  zu  2.  Cor.,  Berlin,  1874,  and  Holtzmann).  Even 
Holsten,  recently  followed  by  Mangold,  admits  an  essential 
distinction  between  the  disciples  of  Cephas  and  the  ol  TOV 
Xpiorov  with  their  violent  hostility  to  Paul,  while  Hilgenfeld, 
after  the  precedent  of  Grotius  and  Thiersch,  distinguishes 
them  from  the  latter  only  as  being  direct  disciples  of  Christ, 
which  was  also  the  opinion  of  Beyschlag  and  Holsten.  But 
the  latter  alone  has  clearly  recognised  that  in  this  case  the 
current  idea  of  the  ol  Xpiorov  as  a  party  consisting  of  mem- 
bers of  the  Corinthian  Church,  must  be  definitely  abandoned, 
since  the  special  relation  to  Christ  which  the  term,  however 
understood,  indicates,  could  only  be  predicated  of  themselvea 


262  TttB   CORINTHIAN  PARTIES. 

by  individual  teachers  who  had  come  to  Corinth,  but  never 
by  their  followers.2 

6.  The  critical  point  was  that  the  state  of  the  Corinthian 
Church  offered  the  most  favourable  ground  foi  the  agita- 
tion of  the  Apostle's  Jewish-Christian  adversaries.  In  a 
Church  in  which  the  excesses  of  the  free  Gentile-Christians 
and  the  prevailing  differences  of  opinion  on  important 
questions  showed  undoubted  necessity  for  a  legal  regulation 
of  the  Christian  life,  they  had  apparently  a  just  title  to 
come  forward  as  SLO.KOVOI  SiKcuoo-vnys  (2  Cor.  xi.  15)  ;  and  in  a 
Church  where  the  name  of  the  Apostle  was  still  used  only  in 
the  sense  of  a  party  leader,  they  might  look  for  the  readiest 
success  if  they  could  attack  the  gospel  that  rested  on  his 
authority,  with  effect.  They  were  native  Jews,  who  came 
from  abroad  with  letters  of  recommendation  to  Corinth 
(2  Cor.  xi.  22,  iii.  1),  and  there  represented  themselves  as 
BIOLKOVOI  X/DICTTOU,  and  even  as  apostles  of  Christ  (xi.  13,  23), 
while  Paul  sometimes  designates  them  ironically  as  wrepXiav 
(xi.  5,  xii.  11),  and  again  openly  calls  them 
(xi.  13).  If  they  founded  their  claim  to  this 
character  on  their  special  relation  to  Christ  (x.  7 :  el  rts 
iTfiroiOfv  IO.VTW  Xpicrrou  ctvai),  it  can  only  have  been  they  who 
said  of  themselves,  eyu>  X/JIOTOV  (1  Cor.  i.  12),1  and  after  the 

*  This  baa  indeed  already  been  remarked  by  others ;  bnt  it  baa  been 
customary  to  rest  satisfied  with  the  foot  that  the  other  parties  also 
cannot  have  been  composed  of  purely  personal  disciples  of  Paul  and 
Apollos,  particularly  the  Cephas-party,  wbich  can  only  be  asserted  of 
the  bitter  if  we  shut  our  eyes  to  the  view  put  forward  in  No.  4,  note  2. 
But  it  is  not  possible  to  understand  the  ol  Ilai/Xov,  ol  'AriXXw,  ol  Ktj<pa  as 
applying  either  in  word  or  substance  to  such  as  shared  the  views  of  these 
men ;  and  even  if  possible,  it  would  not  prove  that  ol  Xpio-roD  referred  to 
such  as  gave  the  preference  to  Christ  before  all  other  teachers,  on  account 
of  the  direct  relation  borne  by  the  primitive  apostles  or  their  teachers 
to  him. 

1  It  is  vain  to  put  forward  the  ftrcurrot  vft.wt>  X^yet  against  the  reference 
of  the  ty<l>  X/wroD  to  the  Judaistic  errorists.  The  question  turns  on  the 
interpretation  of  the  Apostle's  meaning  when  he  says  he  has  heard, 
Sri  fpidet  if  \>n~v  ebb  (vers.  11).  And  since  these  very  disciples  of  Christ 


THE   CORINTHIAN   PAETIES.  263 

analogy  of  parallel  expressions  in  this  passage,  the  term  can 
only  mean  that  they  were  immediate  disciples  of  Christ, 
since  they  made  this  discipleship  the  basis  of  their  title  to 
preach  another  Jesus  and  another  gospel  than  Paul's  (2  Cor. 
xi.  4). 

The  supposition  put  forward  by  the  Tubingen  school,  that  these 
Jewish  Christians  could  only  have  come  from  the  primitive  apostles  and 
from  Jerusalem  with  letters  of  commendation,  since  the  latter  alone 
could  give  them  authority  as  servants  and  apostles  of  Christ  in  the  eyes 
of  the  Corinthians,  contradicts  2  Cor.  iii.,  since  Paul  there  puts  these 
letters  of  commendation  quite  on  a  par  with  those  that  he  had  received 
from  the  Corinthians.  It  does  not  even  follow  from  the  fact  of  their 
being  Hebrews  (xi.  22)  that  they  came  from  Palestine;  since  Paul,  a 
Jew  of  the  dispersion,  makes  the  same  claim.  The  only  probability  in 
favour  of  this  view  is  the  fact  that  they  professed  to  be  direct  disciples 
of  Christ,  in  which  case  it  would  certainly  be  natural  that  their  letters  of 
recommendation  should  have  come  from  Jerusalem.  But  even  then  it 
would  by  no  means  follow  that  they  had  been  drawn  up  by  the  primitive 
apostles,  since  Holsten  himself  concedes  that  there  were  very  diverse 
currents  of  opinion  in  Jerusalem.  If  this  were  the  case,  however,  still 
it  would  not  follow  that  the  praise  lavished  on  them  by  the  primitive 
apostles  gave  them  authority  for  their  anti-Pauline  agitation  (in  par- 
ticular comp.  §  21,  5,  note  2).  The  importance  formerly  attributed  by 
Baur  to  the  appearance  of  these  Judaists  for  his  adopted  view  of  the 
hostile  relation  between  Paul  and  the  primitive  apostles  has  its  basis 
in  the  fact  that  he  looked  on  those  whom  they  professed  to  represent 
in  opposition  to  Paul,  and  whom  the  latter  so  ironically  characterizes 
as  vire/)\iai>  diro<rro\ot,  as  the  primitive  apostles  (comp.  also  Hilgenfeld) ; 
but  even  Holsten  most  distinctly  admits  that  the  passages  in  question, 
judged  by  the  context,  refer  only  to  themselves.  This  does  away  with 
all  possibility  of  proving  from  the  Corinthian  Epistle,  as  Holsten  still 
endeavours  to  do,  that  a  Judaistio  reaction  took  place  in  the  Church 
subsequent  to  the  dispute  at  Antioch,  though  solely  under  the  guidance 
of  James,  not  to  speak  of  the  assumption  of  a  hostile  position  towards 
Paul  on  the  part  of  the  primitive  apostles. 

had  undoubtedly  contributed  most  towards  sharpening  and  embittering 
party  disturbances,  and  since  they  were  only  too  readily  received  by 
the  Church  in  which  they  now  laboured  as  teachers  highly  esteemed 
by  many,  he  was  at  liberty  to  put  their  watchword  beside  that  of  the 
other  parties.  But  the  fact  that  he  has  so  done,  shows  plainly  that 
the  section  (iv.  18  ff.)  in  which  these  disturbances  are  discussed  baa 
reference  to  those  rivts. 


264  THE   CORINTHIAN   PARTIES. 

It  is  certainly  from  the  second  Epistle  that  we  first  learn 
more  of  these  anti- Pauline  Jndaists ;  but  it  is  clear  beyond 
doubt  that  Paul  already  knew  of  their  appearance  when  writ- 
ing the  first  Epistle,  from  the  fact  that  in  concluding  the 
exhortation  against  party  divisions,  he  speaks  of  such  as  are 
puffed  np  with  the  idea  that  he  can  no  longer  go  to  Corinth, 
and  promises,  if  he  comes,  to  prove,  not  TOV  Xoyov  but  -njv 
Svvafuv  of  these  ire^vo-iw/xevoi  (1  Cor.  iv.  18  ff.).  These  can 
only  have  been  teachers  who  thought  themselves  of  more 
consequence  than  Paul,  and  who  supposed  that  after  their 
appearing,  he  would  not  dare  to  meet  them  face  to  face.8 
But  ix.  1-3 .  equally  implies  that  there  were  those  who 
doubted  his  apostleship  and  rejected  his  apostolic  authority 
where  they  themselves  were  concerned ;  it  is  also  plain  from 
ix.  12  that  those  who,  in  return  for  their  ministry,  claimed 
to  be  supported  by  the  Church,  were  preachers  of  the  gospel. 
It  is  manifest  that  hitherto  they  had  not  come  forward 
directly  with  their  legal  doctrine,  for  the  experiences  of  the 
Judaists  in  Galatia  might  have  taught  them  that  they  could 
effect  nothing  in  this  direction  unless  the  authority  of  the 
Apostle  were  first  undermined.  But  it  was  obviously  im- 
possible to  attempt  this  by  means  of  rough  polemic,  until 
they  themselves  had  gained  a  firm  footing  in  the  Church. 

*  Hilgenfeld  has  indeed  made  an  elaborate  attempt  to  show,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  express  statement  of  the  Apostle  (iv.  6),  that  the  greatest 
part  of  the  section  against  party  strife  has  reference  to  the  Judaists, 
as  well  as  much  else  in  the  epistle  that  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
them.  Even  the  passage  iii.  16  f.,  cannot,  in  accordance  with  the 
context,  be  referred  to  the  Judaists,  bat  only  to  the  destruction  of  the 
Chnrch  by  party  discord.  Whether  iii.  23  alludes  to  the  shibboleth  of 
the  disciples  of  Christ,  is  very  doubtful,  since  the  fyielj  JLpiarov  is 
certainly  taken  in  another  sense ;  and  only  if  such  were  the  allusion, 
would  it  rightly  follow,  that  those  who  claimed  this  X/xoroO  eZwu  did 
not  belong  to  the  Church  as  such.  It  would  be  more  natural  to  suppose 
that  the  inrb  dr#/x»nrb'i?*  ijntpat  (iv.  3),  as  contrasted  with  the  v<f>  i/pur 
dvaxpiOw,  had  reference  to  them,  although  the  mode  of  expression  makes 
this  improbable.  But  it  cannot  by  any  means  be  proved  that  the  intro- 
ductory greeting  has  reference  to  them  (i.  2),  as  Holsten  maintains. 


THE   CORINTHIAN   PAETIES. 

To  this  end  therefore  it  was  necessary  to  direct  their  first 
efforts ;  and  it  was  probably  only  this  endeavour  to  establish 
their  position  as  highly  favoured  apostles  owing  to  their 
personal  intercourse  with  Christ,  that  led  them  incidentally 
to  throw  doubt  on  the  apostleship  of  Paul  who  had  not  this 
privilege,  and  to  express  the  opinion  that  after  apostles  like 
themselves  had  appeared,  with  the  intention  of  devoting 
themselves  permanently  to  the  Church,  Paul  would  even 
forbear  to  come  again  to  Corinth.  But  according  to  all  the 
accounts  that  had  hitherto  reached  Paul,  the  Judaists  can 
have  made  no  great  impression  on  the  Church  at  first.  This 
fully  explains  why  he  makes  no  further  mention  of  them 
in  the  first  Epistle ;  it  would  have  been  unwise  to  open  a 
polemic  on  his  side,  until  he  knew  in  what  form  they  would 
come  forward  with  their  final  aims  which  he  undoubtedly 
saw  through.3 

3  Holsten's  view  that  Stephanas,  Fortunatus  and  Acbaicus  pacified 
the  Church  that  was  already  stirred  up  against  him,  or  at  least  pacified 
him  with  the  assurance  that  the  Judaists  would  gain  no  influence  over 
the  Church,  and  thus  induced  him  to  refrain  from  directly  attacking 
them  (comp.  also  Mangold),  has  no  support  whatever  in  1  Cor.  xvi. 
17  f.  Moreover,  since  even  in  2  Cor.  xii.  12,  Paul  only  refers  to  the 
ffrineia  rov  diro0T6X<w  in  connection  with  a  comparison  of  himself  with 
the  Judaists  who  were  active  in  Corinth,  it  is  clear  that  the  doubts  of 
his  apostleship  (ix.  1)  by  no  means  pointed  to  a  comparison  with  the 
primitive  apostles.  But  since  we  have  failed  to  find  such  parallel  even 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  (§  18,  4,  note  1,  2),  the  current  notion 
that  the  struggle  between  the  Judaists  and  Paul  turned  mainly  on  his 
claim  to  be  an  apostle  which  was  denied  in  favour  of  the  primitive 
apostles,  very  recently  defended  with  great  energy  by  Holtzmann 
(Zeitschr.  f.  wiss.  Theol.,  1879,  4),  is  quite  untenable.  It  is  doubly 
contradicted  by  the  fact  that  these  disciples  of  Christ  also  gave  them- 
selves out  as  apostles,  and  that  Paul  by  no  means  impugns  the  abstract 
possibility  that  there  might  be  other  apostles  besides  himself  and  the 
primitive  apostles  (comp.  1  Thess.  ii.  7),  but  declares  these  to  be 
^evSair6ffTo\oi  on  account  of  their  mode  of  acting  (2  Cor.  xi.  13).  Even 
in  1  Ccr.  ix.  1  f.,  the  question  turns  essentially  on  his  apostolic 
authority  where  the  Corinthians  are  concerned,  and  only  incidentally 
does  he  touch  the  subject  at  all,  since  he  does  not  claim  the  right  to 
be  supported  by  the  Church,  which  he  so  energetically  defends  as  an 
apostolic  privilege,  but  expressly  asserts  the  claim  in  the  case  of  all 


266  SENDING  OP  TIMOTHY  TO  CORINTH. 

7.  The  first  accounts  received  by  Paul  respecting  the 
unsatisfactory  relations  in  Corinth,  came  from  the  people  of 
a  certain  Chloe,  and  referred  mainly  to  the  latest  party 
dissensions  (1  Cor.  i.  11).  What  he  heard  seemed  serious 
enough  to  make  it  desirable  to  send  Timothy  at  once  to 
Corinth.  He  evidently  cherished  the  hope  that  the  appear- 
ance at  Corinth  of  his  beloved  spiritual  child  would  suffice 
to  recall  to  the  memory  of  the  whole  Church  so  vivid  a 
picture  of  their  spiritual  father,  that  the  dust  in  which 
party  strife  had  enveloped  them  would  disappear,  and  the 
Church  would  strive  to  emulate  the  example  of  his  humble, 
self-sacrificing  life.  They  would  learn  from  Timothy  that 
he  desired  nothing  different  from  them  than  from  all  his 
Churches  (iv.  14-17).  It  is  this  sending  of  Timothy  that 
the  Acts  put  into  the  third  year  of  Paul's  sojourn  at 
Ephesus  (xix.  22).  He  travelled  on  that  occasion  through 
Macedonia  with  a  certain  Erastus,  perhaps  the  city- 
chamberlain  from  Corinth,  who  had  by  chance  been  in 
Ephesus  (Rom.  xvi.  23),  and  therefore  took  the  land  route 
to  Corinth.  From  1  Cor.  xvi.  11  some  other  Ephesians  who 
had  business  in  Corinth,  seem  also  to  have  travelled  with 
them.  Paul  would  have  preferred  that  Apollos  had  gone 
instead  of  Timothy,  but  the  latter  was  detained  by  urgent 
business  (xvi.  12) -1  Paul,  however,  was  soon  destined  to 
learn  how  inadequate  this  measure  was. 

preachers  of  the  gospel  (iz.  14,  comp.  vers.  5f.).  The  importance 
attributed  in  apostolic  times  to  the  apostolic  name  as  such  is  in  fact 
commonly  overestimated. 

1  It  is  generally  assumed  that  Apollos  declined  the  proposed  journey 
on  account  of  the  abuse  made  of  his  name  in  Corinth,  in  spite  of  Paul's 
argent  entreaties ;  bat  the  promise  that  he  would  come  when  he  had 
time,  points  too  decidedly  to  the  above-named  motive.  He  probably 
found  abundant  opportunity  in  Asia  Minor  for  a  fruitful  ministry. 


THE   FIRST  EPISTLE   TO  THE   COEINTHIANS.       267 

§  20.    THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS. 

1.  Not  long  after  the  departure  of  Timothy,  a  deputation 
arrived  at  Ephesns  from  Corinth.  Stephanas  and  his  two 
companions  Fortunatus  and  Achaicus,  who  seem  in  some 
way  to  have  belonged  to  his  house,  had  volunteered  to  go  to 
the  Apostle  at  Ephesus,  in  order  by  their  presence  to  renew 
the  bond  between  him  and  the  Church,  the  loosening  of 
which  had  therefore  been  felt,  at  least  in  certain  circles 
(1  Cor.  xvi.  17  f. ;  comp.  ver.  15),  and  to  take  a  letter  to 
the  Church,  in  which  the  Apostle's  view  respecting  various 
questions  of  Christian  life  that  had  been  matter  of  con- 
troversy in  the  Church,  was  solicited,  probably  with  special 
reference  to  the  marriage  question  (vii.  I).1  These  men, 
who  took  so  warm  an  interest  in  the  affairs  of  the  Church, 
had  unquestionably  a  still  more  comprehensive  object  in 
their  journey.  They  wished  to  give  the  Apostle  a  more 
minute  account  as  to  the  many  distressing  relations  in  the 
Church ;  and  from  them  Paul  first  learned  all  that  we  can 
gather  on  this  subject  from  his  first  Epistle,  in  particular 
with  regard  to  party  spirit  in  that  city  (§  19)  ;  in  addition 
probably  to  many  details  that  he  purposely  avoids  mention- 
ing. Paul  recognised  that  it  was  high  time  to  take  energetic 
measures  for  the  regeneration  of  the  deeply  degraded 

1  Whether  with  regard  also  to  the  eating  of  flesh  offered  in  sacrifice 
and  to  gifts  of  grace,  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty  from  viii.  1, 
xii .  1 ;  bat  the  way  in  which  Hof inarm  and  Heiniici  seek  to  determine 
every  detail  of  what  the  epistle  contained  ou  every  single  point,  or  in 
which  Holtzmann  settles  the  arrangement  of  the  epistle  from  the 
Apostle's  own  discussions  and  the  answers  to  the  Church-letters,  goes 
far  beyond  what  can  with  certainty  be  gathered  from  the  text.  The 
conjecture  that  the  epistle,  which  unquestionably  proceeded  from  the 
Church  as  a  whole  and  not  from  a  single  party,  was  an  answer  to  the 
lost  epistle  of  Paul,  is  quite  improbable  (§  19,  1)  ;  but  the  view  that  the 
delegates  who  brought  it  were  the  people  of  Chloe  mentioned  in  i.  11,  is 
certainly  false,  since  according  to  xvi.  10,  Timothy,  whom  Paul  had  sent 
away  after  receiving  the  accounts  of  these  people,  had  evidently  set  out 
already. 


268  THE  MESSAGE  FROM  CORINTH. 

Church,  and  that  the  mission  of  Timothy  was  far  from  suffi- 
cient for  this  purpose.  The  most  natural  idea  was  that  he 
should  at  once  proceed  thither  himself.  Besides,  he  had 
already  promised  the  Church,  probably  in  the  last  epistle 
(comp.  2  Cor.  i.  13  ff.),  to  make  a  journey  of  visitation  to 
the  Macedonian  Churches  which  he  had  long  since  planted 
(Acts  xix.  21) ;  arranging  that  he  should  go  to  Corinth  by 
•way  of  the  sea,  passing  thence  to  Macedonia,  and  returning 
again  to  Corinth  and  there  embarking  for  the  East  (2  Cor. 
i.  15  £.).  Deeply  agitated  as  he  was  on  account  of  much 
that  he  had  heard  from  Corinth,  he  must  have  gone  to 
them  with  words  of  severe  censure,  and  have  distressed  the 
Church  as  well  as  himself,  instead  of  his  visit  proving  a 
source  of  mutual  pleasure.  He  could  not  make  up  his  mind 
to  this  (i.  23-ii.  3).  He  might  possibly  have  tried  once 
more  to  persuade  Apollos  to  undertake  the  journey  to 
Corinth;  but  since  he  gives  no  greeting  from  him,  the  latter 
must  have  been  already  absent  from  Ephesus.  The  Apostle 
had  therefore  no  alternative  but  to  give  the  returning  dele- 
gates a  letter  in  which,  by  the  most  forcible  language,  he 
sought  to  put  an  end  to  the  existing  evils ;  that  on  his  next 
visit  he  might  have  unalloyed  pleasure  in  seeing  the  Church 
again  (ii.  3).  His  task  was  difficult  enough.  His  love  to- 
ward the  Church  which  he  would  not  willingly  afflict,  con- 
stantly strove  with  his  anger  on  account  of  its  evil  condition, 
with  the  severity  and  even  bitterness  that  indignation 
against  its  conduct  had  aroused  in  him ;  he  wrote  in  much 
affliction  and  with  many  tears  (ii.  3).  Since  the  messen- 
gers unquestionably  returned  by  the  shortest  way,  they 
would  reach  Corinth  before  Timothy,  whom  he  announces 
and  commends  through  them,  and  whose  return  he  would 
await  at  Epbesus  (1  Cor.  xvi.  10  f.).  It  seems  to  have 
been  about  Easter-tide,  for  in  v.  6-8,  he  is  manifestly  still 
taken  up  with  impressions  of  the  festival.  He  would  remain 
at  Ephesus  until  Pentecost,  in  order  to  carry  on  his  ministry 


INTBODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE.  269 

that  was  there  so  richly  blessed  (xvi.  8  f.),  would  then 
pass  through  Macedonia  to  Corinth,  where  he  would  make  a 
longer  stay,  probably  for  the  winter  (xvi.  6-7),  and  whence 
he  would  set  out  on  his  long-projected  collection-journey  to 
Jerusalem  (xvi.  3  f.,  comp.  Acts  xix.  21).8 

2.  Whether  Sosthenes,  who  takes  part  in  the  introductory 
greeting  of  the  Apostle,  was  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue 
at  Corinth,  formerly  so  hostile  to  him  (Acts  xviii.  17),  but 
afterwards  converted,  we  do  not  know ;  it  is  by  no  means 
impossible.  For  the  rest,  the  very  way  in  which  the  Apostle 
speaks  of  himself  in  the  inscription  emphasizes  his  Divine 
authority,  just  as  his  characterization  of  the  Church  re- 
minds them  that  they  are  sanctified  in  life- communion  with 
Christ,  and  are,  by  virtue  of  their  calling,  bound  to  the  wor- 
shippers of  Christ  in  every  place,  in  order  to  impress  on 
them  their  obligation  to  lay  aside  all  uncleanness  and  all 
division  among  themselves,  as  well  as  all  departure  by 
arbitrary  innovation  from  universal  Christian  usage  (1  Cor. 
i.  1  f.).  In  the  same  way  the  thanksgiving  recalls  the 
riches  of  the  gifts  bestowed  upon  them,  and  expresses 
his  confidence  that  God  would  keep  them  blameless  to  the 
day  of  Christ,  in  which,  by  having  called  them,  He  had 
given  them  the  hope  of  the  fulfilment  of  salvation  (i. 
4-9) .  We  feel  how  the  Apostle  forces  himself  to  begin  with 
words  of  recognition  and  of  hope,  as  contrasted  with  the 

*  The  historical  place  of  the  epistle  is  thus  quite  clear ;  and  it  is 
scarcely  worth  while  mentioning  that  Bottger  supposes  it  to  have  been 
written  in  South  Achaia,  while  Kohler,  on  the  basis  of  the  old  subscrip- 
tion, which  rests  on  a  misunderstanding  of  xvi.  5,  maintains  that  it  was 
composed  at  Philippi,  after  the  deliverance  from  the  Bo  man  captivity. 
The  Acts  put  the  plan  of  the  journey  to  Jerusalem  through  Macedonia 
and  Achaia  after  the  two  years  of  the  Apostle's  exclusively  Gentile- 
Christian  ministry  in  Ephesus,  consequently  in  the  2nd  third  of  his  3rd 
year  in  that  place,  making  the  Apostle  purposely  stay  there  some  time 
afterwards  (xix.  21  f.).  Hence  the  first  Corinthian  Epistle  falls  near  the 
middle  of  this  year,  according  to  the  usual  computation  (comp.  §  18,  7, 
nute  2)  about  Easter,  58. 


270  ANALYSIS   OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

agitated  introduction  to  the  Galatian  Epistle.  Even  in 
speaking  of  what  lies  nearest  to  his  heart,  viz.  the  laying 
aside  of  party-spirit,  he  begins  with  a  calm  exhortation  to 
unanimity  of  mind,  pointing  out  that  he  had  done  nothing 
to  attach  them  to  his  own  name  and  person  instead  of  to 
the  name  of  Christ,  which  ought  to  be  their  bond  of  union 
(i.  10-16).  He  then  goes  straight  to  the  point  where  the 
strife  between  the  disciples  of  Apollos  and  his  own  adherents 
had  begun,  and  in  which  the  qnestion  turned  on  the  superi- 
ority of  the  preaching  of  Apollos  to  his  own.  In  an  entirely 
theoretical  exposition,  he  develops  the  fact  that  the  gospel 
entrusted  to  him  preached  only  Christ  and  His  cross,  and 
yet,  in  spite  of  its  apparent  foolishness  and  weakness,  put  to 
shame  all  human  wisdom  and  efficacy;  that  God  had  for 
this  very  reason  called  those  who  were  destitute  of  all  wis- 
dom and  other  human  privileges,  that  men  should  boast  only 
of  Christ  and  the  salvation  given  in  Him  (i.  17-31),  thus 
explaining  (ii.  1-4)  why,  in  laying  tho  basis  of  his  preaching 
among  them,  he  had  renounced  all  human  wisdom  and  rhe- 
torical art  (such  as  was  commended  so  highly  in  Apollos).1 
The  gospel  certainly  contained  depths  of  Divine  wisdom 
that  would  be  revealed  to  its  preachers  by  tho  Spirit  of  God 
by  whom  likewise  they  would  be  instructed  in  their  ministry, 
but  which,  for  this  very  reason,  could  only  be  understood  by 
the  spiritual  man  (ii.  5-16).  The  fact  that  they  had  not 
yet  reached  this  stage,  and  that  therefore  he  could  not 


1  We  here  see  how  necessary  it  was  for  the  Apostle  to  look  at  the 
concrete  questions  of  whioh  he  had  to  treat,  under  the  aspect  of  com- 
prehensive principles.  His  statement  that  the  gospel  of  the  Crucified 
One  was,  in  the  nature  of  things,  foolishness  to  the  wisdom-becking 
Greeks,  and  a  stumbling-block  to  the  Jews  who  required  a  sign ;  yet 
to  those  who  were  called  among  both,  proved  itself  to  be  the  power  of 
God  and  the  wisdom  of  God  (i.  22  ff.),  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
the  differences  of  parties,  to  which  Holsten  ma';ea  it  refer,  but  only  serves 
to  establish  what  he  wants  to  say  respecting  the  true  manner  of  Evan- 
gelical preaching. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE   TO  THE   CORINTHIANS.       271 

reveal  these  things  to  them,  was  best  shown  by  their  carnal 
rivalry  and  strife  respecting  the  names  of  men  (iii.  1-4). 
He  now  first  alludes  directly  to  the  actual  distinction  be- 
tween himself  and  Apollos,  which  rests  entirely  on  the 
special  gift  with  which  each  one  is  endowed  by  God,  for  the 
use  of  which  he  is  responsible,  as  well  as  for  the  success  thus 
obtained  (iii.  5-15).  But  they  were  responsible  if  (by  their 
party  dissension)  they  destroyed  the  temple  of  God,  i.e.  the 
Church,  giving  the  preference  to  man's  wisdom,  although 
the  prerogatives  of  all  separate  teachers  belonged  to  them 
all  (iii.  16-23).  The  servants  of  Christ  are  raised  above  their 
criticism  (as  well  as  their  preference)  by  their  responsibility 
to  the  Lord  (iv.  1-5).  Paul  purposely  treats  the  whole 
question  of  party  strife  respecting  the  pre-eminence  of 
teachers,  only  in  its  relation  to  Apollos,  where  he  was  safe 
from  all  suspicion  of  envious  or  hostile  depreciation ;  and  only 
once,  where  individual  precedence  comes  into  question,  does 
he  name  Cephas  (iii.  22)  ;  but  all  that  was  said  naturally 
applied  to  the  latter  as  well  as  to  the  disciples  of  Christ, 
and  was  intended  to  put  an  end  to  boasting  on  both  sides 
(iv.  6).  In  the  course  of  the  discussion,  however,  which 
was  apparently  so  calm  and  clear,  sharp  and  threatening 
words  respecting  the  Corinthians  and  their  doings  had  al- 
ready escaped  him  (iii.  1-4,  16-18)  ;  in  iv.  3,  the  tone  of 
apostolic  self-consciousness  deeply  injured  by  this  weighing 
and  criticising  of  the  servants  of  Christ  is  already  heard ; 
yet  the  deep  indignation  of  the  Apostle  at  the  vain  arro- 
gance and  satisfied  self-complacency  thus  shown,  breaks 
forth  with  vehemence  that  is  almost  startling,  finding  vent 
in  bitter  words,  in  which  he  contrasts  with  this  picture  that 
of  the  official  life  of  an  apostle,  rich  only  in  humiliations, 
privations,  and  sufferings  (iv.  7-13).  Then  he  resumes  the 
tone  of  tender  love  to  his  spiritual  children,  to  whom  for 
their  good  he  had  sent  his  beloved  son  Timothy,  without 
however  abandoning  his  intention  of  a  personal  visit,  the 


272  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  EPISTLB. 

manner  of  which  would  depend  on  their  own  conduct  (IT. 
14-21). 

3.  With  cutting  severity  he  proceeds  to  contrast  their 
puffed  up  pride  with  the  humiliation  they  had  incurred  by 
so  much  as  suffering  the  presence  of  the  fornicator  in  their 
midst,  whom  he  had  intended  to  deliver  over  to  Satan  by 
way  of  an  exemplary  punishment,  in  case  the  Church  had 
shown  itself  of  one  mind  with  him,  and  now  gives  his 
reasons  for  categorically  demanding  his  excommunication 
(v.  1-13).  So  too  they  dishonoured  themselves  by  seek- 
ing justice  at  heathen  tribunals,  as  if  there  were  none  of 
themselves  wise  enough  to  settle  the  disputes  of  the  breth- 
ren respecting  property,  which  indeed  are  in  themselves 
degrading  enough  when  it  is  remembered  that  all  heathen 
sins  of  lust  and  avarice  exclude  from  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  that  they  as  Christians  are  essentially  separated  from 
such  (vi.  1-11).  He  is  thus  led  back  to  sins  of  unchastity, 
and  in  opposition  to  the  heathen  view,  which  is  disposed  to 
regard  such  sins  as  a  matter  of  indifference,  he  unfolds  in  a 
masterly  way  the  Christian  reasons  for  which  unchastity  is 
to  be  shunned  as  a  sin  against  one's  own  body  (vi.  12-20). 
In  this  connection  he  is  led  to  speak  of  the  enquiries  in 
their  letter  with  respect  to  marriage,  laying  down  as  a  first 
principle  the  fact  that  marriage,  viz.  the  consummation  of 
marriage,  which  from  a  moral  point  of  view  he  represents  as 
a  right  and  obligation  on  the  part  both  of  husband  and  wife, 
serves  as  a  protection  against  temptation  to  unchastity,  and 
that  no  choice  of  an  abstinent  life  on  principle,  such  as  he 
decidedly  preferred,  should  prevent  marriage  where  the  gift 
of  abstinence  was  lacking  (vii.1-9).  With  respect  to  divorce, 
he  appeals  to  the  decisive  utterance  of  the  Lord  which  for- 
bids it,  justifying  its  application  to  mixed  marriages,  on  the 
plea  that  in  the  divinely  ordained  bond  of  marriage,  the 
consecration  of  the  Christian  passes  over  to  the  heathen 
party,  from  whose  natural  uncleanness  contamination  need 


THE  FIEST  EPISTLE   TO  THE   CORINTHIANS.       273 

not  therefore  be  feared,  but  also  lays  down  the  position  that 
the  Christian  should  make  no  conscientious  scruple  if  the 
heathen  wish  to  separate  from  him  (vii.  10-16).  He  finds 
here  only  an  application  of  the  universal  Christian  principle 
according  to  which  each  one  should  remain  in  the  position 
in  which  he  was  when  called  (vii.  17-24),1  and  shows  how 
this  rule  applied  to  virgins  would  prevent  their  marrying. 
In  his  view,  that  had  at  least  some  claim  to  credibility, 
they  would  only  be  thus  exempted  from  heavy  troubles, 
while  their  religious  duty  would  be  made  easier  (vii.  25-34). 
In  individual  cases,  however,  the  answer  to  the  question  as 
to  whether  a  man  ought  to  marry  a  virgin  or  not,  depended 
on  her  natural  disposition  and  his  own  conscientious  con- 
viction (vii.  35-38).  So  too  the  widow  has  a  perfect  right 
to  enter  into  a  second  marriage,  presuming  that  it  is  a 
Christian  one,  although,  according  to  his  spiritually  enlight- 
ened view,  it  would  be  happier  for  her  not  to  do  so  (vii. 
39  f.).9 

4.  The  controversy  respecting  the  marriage  question  is 

1  The  way  in  which  Paul  traces  the  prohibition  of  divorce  back  to  this 
principle,  which  he  then  applies  to  the  greatest  differences  of  religious 
life  and  social  position,  such  as  were  certainly  not  in  question  in  Corinth, 
again  shows  how  necessary  it  was  to  the  Apostle,  even  where  a  cate- 
gorical command  of  the  Lord  was  in  question,  to  get  at  its  deepest 
principle  and  all  its  consequences.    It  was  this  principle,  which  accord- 
ing to  his  declaration  he  proclaimed  in  all  the  Churches,  that  pre- 
served Christianity  from  revolutionary  byways  and  led  to  the  spon- 
taneous regeneration  of  the  dispositions  of  natural  life.    Moreover,  it 
follows  most  clearly  from  the  first  application  he  makes  of  it  (ver.  18  f .), 
that  in  spite  of  his  doctrine  of  essential  freedom  from  the  law,  the  Jew 
must  remain  a  Jew  in  his  manner  of  life  (unless  released  from  such 
obligation  by  special  command  of  God)  when  called  to  be  a  Christian,  as 
well  as  from  its  second  application  to  the  Christian  slave,  who  is  volun- 
tarily to  serve  God  in  this  state  and  not  wilfully  to  strive  for  freedom. 

2  It  is  vain  to  try  to  determine  separately  which  of  these  arguments 
rest  on  definite  inquiries  put  by  the  Church,  or  are  directed  against 
definite  errors,  since  Paul  has  put  the  whole  question  in  such  compre- 
hensive and  luminous  grouping  that  his  peculiarity  of  style  and  not 
accident  must  have  been  the  determining  cause. 

T 


274  ANALYSIS   OF   THE   EPISTLE. 

naturally  followed  by  that  concerning  the  eating  of  flesh 
offered  to  idols.  Paul  freely  declares  in  favour  of  those  who 
see  no  idolatrous  defilement  in  eating  such  food,  because 
there  are  no  divine  beings  such  as  the  heathen  by  their  idols 
represent  (viii.  1-6).  But  there  are  some  who  have  not 
this  knowledge,  whose  conscience  is  defiled  by  such  eat- 
ing; hence  those  to  whom  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference 
must  give  up  their  liberty  lest  they  should  lead  their 
•weak  brethren  to  act  in  opposition  to  conscience  (viii.  7-12). 
Pointing  to  his  own  conduct  in  this  respect  (viii.  13),  he 
explains  it  by  the  fundamental  principles  of  his  official  life. 
He  will  not  contend  respecting  his  claim  to  be  an  apostle 
(ix.  1-3)  ;  but  the  right  to  be  supported  by  the  Church  be- 
longs to  all  preachers  of  the  gospel.  This  is  attested  by  the 
very  nature  of  the  thing  as  well  as  by  the  Old  Testament 
interpreted  allegorically  and  typically,  and  by  the  express 
command  of  the  Lord  (ix.  4-14)  ;  nevertheless  he  had  re- 
nounced his  claim  for  the  sake  of  the  gospel  (ix.  19-23). 
He  feels  himself  free  with  respect  to  all  men ;  yet  to  the 
Jews  he  is  a  Jew,  to  the  Gentiles  a  Gentile,  to  the  weak  as 
•weak,  for  the  gospel's  sake  (ix.  19-23).  Such  self-denial  for 
the  sake  of  the  brethren  also  promotes  the  life  of  the  indi- 
vidual Christian,  inasmuch  as  all  such  practice  strengthens 
the  power  to  resist  temptation  (ix.  24-27).  How  necessary 
this  is  may  be  seen  from  the  typical  history  of  Israel,  who, 
notwithstanding  many  experiences  of  grace,  succumbed 
to  temptation  in  the  wilderness  (x.  1-13).  Participation 
in  food  offered  to  idols  must  therefore  be  unconditionally 
abandoned  on  account  of  the  temptations  inevitably  associ- 
ated with  it  (x.  14-22) ; l  while  even  with  respect  to 

1  In  z.  1-4  the  Apostle  has  already  intimated  that  the  experiences  of 
grace  made  by  all  Christians  in  baptism  and  the  last  supper,  are  quite 
analogous  to  Israel's  experiences  of  grace  in  the  wilderness.  He  here 
goes  back  to  the  last  snpper  in  order,  from  the  real  communion  with  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  effected  by  partaking  of  the  cup  of  bletsing 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE   TO  THE   CORINTHIANS.       275 

such  things  as  are  in  themselves  allowable,  consideration 
for  others  must  be  the  rule  of  action,  as  in  his  own  case 
(x.  23-xi.  1). 

5.  Paul  then  passes  on  to  the  disorders  that  prevailed  in 
the  Church-meetings.  He  first  censures  the  unveiling  of  the 
women  during  the  hours  of  devotion,  which  he  declares  to 
be  a  repudiation  on  the  part  of  the  woman  of  that  subjection 
to  man  to  which  she  was  appointed  in  the  order  of  creation, 
without  prejudice  to  her  religious  equality,  stigmatizing  it 
as  a  violation  of  the  modesty  which  nature  itself  teaches 
woman,  by  giving  her  a  veil  of  long  hair;  for  man  alone 
may  stand  before  God  with  uncovered  head  (xi.  3-15)  -1  The 
Apostle  also  takes  advantage  of  the  disorders  at  the  love- 
feasts,  to  censure  which  few  words  are  required  (xi.  17-22 ; 
comp.  vers.  33  f .),  in  order,  by  a  detailed  account  of  the  reve- 
lation he  had  received  respecting  the  aim  and  meaning  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  to  enforce  the  sacred  duty  of  preparation 
for  it  (xi.  23-33),  reserving  other  instructions  until  he  should 
visit  them  in  person  (xi.  34).  Finally  he  introduces  the 
section  relative  to  the  dispute  respecting  gifts  of  the  Spirit, 
by  a  detailed  discussion,  showing  how  these,  notwithstanding 
their  great  diversity,  are  the  work  of  one  Spirit,  which  has 
its  infallible  sign  in  the  confession  of  Christ,  and  unites  the 
members  of  the  Church  into  one  original  body  by  means  of 
these  gifts  (xii.  1—14).  Following  up  this  imagery,  he  now 
explains  in  drastic,  half  parabolic  form  how  the  higher  gifts 

and  the  broken  bread,  as  well  as  from  the  analogy  of  the  Jewish  sacrificial 
meal  which  mediates  participation  in  the  Divine  presence  at  the  altar 
(x.  16-18),  to  show  that  the  heathen  sacrificial  meal  brought  about  a 
real  communion  with  demons,  to  whom  offering  is  thus  made,  referring 
naturally  to  the  seductive  influences  that  made  these  meals  an  incite- 
ment to  wantonness  and  lust. 

1  From  the  fact,  that  he  finally  puts  an  end  to  all  further  discussion  of 
this  question  of  decorum  by  an  appeal  to  common  Christian  custom  (xi. 
16),  just  as  he  began  it  by  a  referencg  to  his  tradition  (xi.  2),  we  see 
clearly  how  necessary  it  was  for  him  to  go  to  the  very  foundation  even  oi 
buch  questions  as  this,  and  to  answer  accordingly. 


270  ANALYSIS   OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

are  not  to  be  overrated  nor  the  inferior  ones  despise-1,  since 
each  member  is  in  its  own  way  eqnally  necessary  to  the  body, 
for  which  reason  God  has,  by  implanting  a  natural  feeling  of 
shame  and  beauty,  so  ordained  that  the  subordinate  members 
are  indemnified  for  that  wherein  they  are  lacking,  by  more 
careful  veiling  and  adornment ;  suffering  as  well  as  honour 
drawing  all  the  other  members  into  sympathy  (xii.  15-26). 
Then  after  making  a  second  application  of  the  image  to  the 
body  of  Christ,  with  its  members  having  divers  gifts  (xii. 
27-30),  he  promises  to  show  them  the  way  that  leads  to 
coveting  of  the  higher  gifts  (xii.  31).  This  is  followed  by 
the  splendid  hymn  in  praise  of  love  without  which  all  other 
gifts  are  of  no  value ;  which  alone  is  imperishable,  whereas 
others  cease  with  the  second  coming, — greater  even  than 
faith  and  hope,  which  are  important  only  where  the  life  of 
the  individual  is  concerned,  while  the  gift  of  love  tends  to 
foster  the  life  of  the  Church  (xiii.  1-13).  From  this  point 
of  view  he  again  enters  fundamentally  into  the  distinction 
between  prophecy,  which  was  a  specific  gift  for  the  edifica- 
tion of  the  Church,  and  the  ecstatic  speaking  with  tongues 
of  which  we  have  here  so  vivid  a  picture.  The  latter  serves 
at  most  for  self-edification,  but  is  quite  valueless  to  the 
Church  (xiv.  1-19),  and  if  carried  to  an  extreme,  cannot 
even  attain  its  relative  importance  as  a  sign  to  unbelievers 
(xiv.  20-25).  Accordingly  he  proceeds  by  concrete  precepts 
to  regulate  the  conduct  of  speakers  with  tongues,  who  are 
only  to  let  themselves  be  heard  when  one  who  has  the  gift 
of  interpreting  tongues  is  present ;  as  also  of  the  prophets, 
who  can  and  must  give  way  to  a  fresh  burst  of  inspiration 
in  another  (xiv.  26-33).  Referring  to  Christian  custom, 
he  categorically  forbids  women  to  come  forward  in  the 
Church- meetings  (xiv.  34-36),  appealing  once  more  to  the 
judgment  of  those  who  are  spiritually  gifted  themselves 
and  to  the  necessity  of  fixed"  arrangements  for  the  service  of 
the  Church  (xiv.  37-40). 


THE   FIRST  EPISTLE   TO   THE    CORINTHIANS.       277 

6.  The  15th  chapter,  directed  against  those  who  doubt  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  is  a  masterpiece  of  Pauline  doctrine. 
He  sets  out  with  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  which,  as  the 
chief  subject  of  all  preaching,  was  attested  by  so  many  wit- 
nesses of  His  appearances,  even  down  to  himself  (xv.  1-11). 
He  shows  how  the  assumption  that  there  can  be  no  resur- 
rection of  the  dead  is  thus  refuted,  unless  we  are  to  give  up 
the  fact  of  Christ's  resurrection  which  is  the  foundation  of 
our  saving  faith  and  Christian  hope  (xv.  12-19)  ;  how,  on  the 
contrary,  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  a  guarantee  for  that 
of  those  who  believe  in  Him,  although  this  can  only  ensue  at 
His  second  coming,  when,  after  the  conquest  of  death  as 
the  last  enemy,  the  fulness  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  to  begin 
(xv.  20-28).  He  appeals  to  the  presumption  of  this  cer- 
tainty contained  in  the  custom  of  the  Church,  as  well  as  in 
his  own  joy  in  the  prospect  of  death;  and  concludes  with 
a  sharp  reprimand  for  the  way  in  which  by  their  heathen 
intercourse  they  had  allowed  themselves  to  be  robbed  of 
all  Christian  sobriety  (xv.  29-34).  He  also  takes  up  the 
question  of  the  resurrection  body,  and  pointing  to  the  symbol 
of  the  seed  sown,  and  to  the  great  diversity  between  bodies 
in  heaven  and  upon  earth  (xv.  35-41),  explains  how  the 
nature  of  the  resurrection  body  will  certainly  be  directly 
opposite  to  that  of  the  earthly  human  body,  viz.  a  spiritual 
nature,  which  the  Second  Adam  first  received  at  the  resur- 
rection, just  as  our  earthly  psychical  nature  comes  from  the 
first  Adam  (xv.  42-59) .  Then,  in  prophetic  flight,  he  rises 
to  a  description  of  that  great  final  catastrophe,  when  with 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the  change  of  those  that 
survive,  the  victory  over  death  to  which  sin  gave  power 
over  us,  will  be  accomplished  by  Christ  (xv.  51-58).  This 
exhausts  the  subject  of  his  epistle.  He  now  touches  upon 
some  arrangements  respecting  the  collection  for  Jerusalem 
that  had  evidently  been  already  suggested  to  them,  as  he 
had  likewise  done  in  Galatia,  and  reminds  them  that  in  caso 


278         DEPARTURE  FROM  EPHESU3. 

the  collection  prove  large,  they  are  to  choose  bearers  of  it  to 
be  his  fellow-travellers,  whereupon  he  promises  to  visit  them 
in  the  winter  (xvi.  1-9).  In  the  meantime  he  had  evidently 
begun  to  doubt  whether,  under  existing  circumstances  at 
Corinth,  as  represented  to  him  by  the  latest  accounts,  Timothy 
would  find  the  desired  reception ;  and  since  the  messengers 
who  were  returning  direct  would  arrive  before  Timothy 
who  was  travelling  through  Macedonia,  he  urgently  exhorts 
them  not  to  intimidate  or  despise  him  when  he  should  arrive ; 
explaining  at  the  same  time  why  he  had  not  sent  Apollos 
instead,  and  concluding  with  a  comprehensive  admonition 
(xvi.  10-14).  Then  follows  by  way  of  subscription  a  warm 
recommendation  of  the  returning  messengers,  together  with 
greetings  from  the  Churches  of  Asia,  from  his  hosts  and  the 
whole  Ephesian  Church  (xvi.  15-20).  But  he  accompanies 
the  greeting  in  his  own  hand  with  a  terrible  and  earnest 
exhortation  to  those  who  love  not  the  Lord,  in  view  of  His 
second  coming,  and  remembering  the  hard  words  he  was 
obliged  to  address  to  many,  with  an  assurance  of  his  love  to 
all  (xvi.  21-24). 

7.  The  danger  that  threatened  the  Apostle  owing  to  the 
revolt  stirred  up  by  Demetrius  the  silversmith  among  the 
workers  of  his  craft,  because  his  trade,  and  hence,  it  was 
alleged,  the  honour  of  the  great  Diana  of  Ephesus  already  be- 
gan to  suffer  considerable  loss  through  Christianity,  belong 
to  the  latter  part  of  his  stay  at  Ephesus.  Two  Macedonian 
companions  of  Paul,  Gains  and  Aristarchus,  were  dragged 
into  the  theatre ;  but  the  efforts  of  the  Apostle's  friends 
and  of  certain  chiefs  of  Asia  were  successful  in  preventing 
him  from  going  thither.  The  growing  crowd,  not  rightly 
knowing  what  matter  was  in  dispute,  became  still  more 
frenzied  when  a  certain  Alexander,  whom  the  Jews  put 
forward  because  they  feared  that  they  might  be  set  upon, 
began  an  apologetic  address  to  his  people,  till  at  last  the  town 
clerk  interfered,  referring  Demetrius  and  his  companions  to 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   TO   THE    CORINTHIANS.       279 

the  ordinary  law  courts,  and  threatening  punishment  for  the 
revolt.  Thus  it  came  about  that  the  storm  passed  over 
without  danger  (Acts  xix.  23-41) ;  but  the  Apostle  never- 
theless felt  impelled  to  leave  the  city  on  this  account  (xx.  1). 
We  do  not  know  whether  or  to  what  extent  the  Apostle's 
intended  stay  was  curtailed  by  this  incident,  nor  yet  whether 
it  was  the  fanaticism  he  had  kindled  that  followed  him  on 
his  farther  journey  through  Asia  Minor,  and,  as  it  appears 
(2  Cor.  vii.  5),  even  into  Macedonia;  but  it  is  certain  that  in 
Asia  he  got  into  a  difficulty  that  made  him  give  up  all  hope 
of  life,  and  from  which  he  was  saved  only  as  by  a  miracle 
(i.  8-10).  Bat  anxiety  as  to  the  impression  his  letter  had 
made  in  Corinth  and  the  effect  of  it  tormented  the  Apostle 
almost  more  than  this  outward  affliction.  When  he  came  to 
Troas  and  did  not  find  the  news  he  had  hoped  for,  his  anxiety 
became  so  great  that  he  was  unable  to  make  use  of  the 
fine  opportunity  for  evangelical  work  that  there  presented 
itself  to  him,  and  went  on  at  once  to  Macedonia  (ii.  12  f.). 

It  strikes  us  as  strange  that  he  expected  this  news 
through  Titus  and  not  through  Timothy,  who  in  accord- 
ance with  his  former  intentions  must  have  reached  that 
place  after  the  arrival  of  his  letter,  and  who  was  now  with 
him  again  in  Macedonia  (i.  1),  without  a  hint  of  his  having 
brought  him  any  news.1  Hence  it  follows  undoubtedly  that 


1  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  explain  this  on  the  assumption  that  it 
was  the  first  account  brought  by  Timothy  that  put  the  Apostle  into  such 
a  state  of  anxiety,  and  that  it  was  only  for  this  reason  that  he  sent  Titus 
hither,  but  that  because  Timothy  was  associated  with  him  in  writing  tbe 
second  Epistle,  he  could  not  mention  the  accounts  received  through  him. 
The  whole  idea  of  co-authorship  in  the  epistle  on  the  pajt  of  Timothy  is 
however  incorrect  (§  16,  4,  note  2),  nor  in  any  case  would  it  have  pre- 
vented Paul  giving  the  accounts  received  through  him  respecting  the 
impression  produced  by  his  letter,  as  the  cause  of  his  uneasiness,  while 
it  was  evidently  the  same  feeling  of  uneasiness  that  tormented  him  in 
Troas  and  had  even  tormented  him  when  writing  the  letter  (ii.  4). 
Wieseler  tried  vainly  to  find  the  news  brought  by  Timothy,  in  the  first 
and  earlier- written  half  of  the  epistle  (comp.  §  21,  4,  note  1).  But  that 


280  MEETING   WITH   TITUS   IN    MACEDONIA. 

Timothy  did  not  come  to  Corinth  ;  moreover  the  Acts  know 
only  of  his  journey  into  Macedonia  (xix.  22);  and  Panl  oonld 
not  possibly  have  refrained  from  mentioning  Timothy  in 
2  Cor.  xii.  18,  if  he  had  been  there.  It  is  however  certain 
that  accidental  delay  was  not  the  cause  of  his  absence.  It 
evidently  became  clear  to  the  Apostle  soon  after  bis  letter 
had  gone,  in  which  moreover  he  had  already  spoken  of  the 
coming  of  Timothy  as  hypothetical  (1  Cor.  xvi.  10 :  lav 
eXflfl),  that  after  having  himself  written  to  Corinth  respecting 
party  division,  on  the  basis  of  more  recent  information,  the 
directions  given  to  Timothy  under  other  supposed  circum- 
stances could  not  attain  their  object.  For  this  reason  he 
had  called  him  back  from  Macedonia  and  in  his  stead  had 
sent  Titus  to  Corinth  with  new  instructions,  but  mainly 
that  he  might  bring  him  tidings  as  to  the  impression  made 
by  his  letter  and  its  result.  Titus  was  to  meet  him  on  the 
journey  he  himself  intended  to  make  through  Macedonia, 
whence  it  happened  that  he  already  expected  him  in  Troas, 
and  actually  met  him  in  Macedonia  (2  Cor.  vii.  5  f.). 

The  whole  state  of  affairs  assumes  a  different  aspect,  if  we  sup- 
pose that  a  letter  of  the  Apostle's  between  our  two  Epistles  was  lost, 
as  Bleek  (Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1830,  3,  corop.  on  the  other  hand  Miiller,  il>id., 
and  Wurm,  Tiib.  Theol.  Zeitschr.,  1838,  1)  maintained,  in  which  view 
he  was  soon  followed  by  Credner,  Neander,  Beuss  and  others.  In  this 
case  Timothy  must  indeed  have  gone  to  Corinth,  bat  have  met  with  an 
unfavourable  reception  there,  while  the  fornicator,  boldly  defiant,  must 
have  resisted  the  commands  of  the  Apostle.  Ewald,  Weizsacker  and 
Mangold,  who  hold  that  the  Apostle  made  another  journey  thither  in  the 
interval  (comp.  §  19,  1,  note  1),  as  well  as  Hilgenfeld  even  maintain,  on 
the  basis  of  vii.  12,  that  gross  insult  was  offered  to  the  Apostle,  or,  as 
Beyschlag  conceives  (Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1865,  2)  to  his  ambassador;  an 

Timothy  had  already  set  out  before  the  first  letter  arrived  and  could 
therefore  bring  no  news,  as  Hofmann  asserts,  is  just  as  inconceivable  as 
that  he  only  arrived  there  after  Titus,  who  had  been  sent  subsequently, 
and  perhaps  brought  later  news  than  he,  since  there  is  no  mention  of 
such  news.  Nor  can  it  be  held  that  Titus  was  sent  to  Corinth  before  our 
first  Epistle,  possibly  with  the  lost  letter,  as  Schrader,  J.  F  Miiller  (de 
Tribut  Pli.  Itin.,  Basel,  1831)  and  others  have  tried  to  show, 


THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   TO  THE   CORINTHIANS.       281 

application  of  the  hypothesis  which,  however,  its  latest  advocate  (Klop- 
per,  Untersuchungen,  etc.,  Goth,  1869  :  Kommentar,  Berl.,  1874)  decidedly 
rejects.  On  account  of  these  sorrowful  tidings,  Paul  is  then  said  to 
have  sent  Titua  with  a  far  sharper  letter  to  Corinth,  which  Hausrath 
(der  Vierkapitelbrief  des  Paulus  an  die  Corinther,  Heidelberg,  1870) 
thought  he  had  found  in  Chap.  x.  13  of  our  Epistle,  and  Hagge  (Jahrb. 
f.  protest.  Theol.,  1876,  3)  tried  to  complete  by  some  sections  of  our  first 
Epistle.  Thus  2  Cor.  ii.  1-4  is  made  to  refer  to  this  lost  letter,  ii.  5-11 
(comp.  vii.  12)  to  what  happened  during  Timothy's  stay,  and  vii.  5-11 
to  the  accounts  brought  by  Titus  respecting  the  result  of  the  former 
sharp  letter.  The  only  thing  apparently  in  favour  of  this  view  is  the 
way  in  which  Paul  describes  the  mood  in  which  he  wrote  this  letter 
(ii.  4)  and  his  anxiety  as  to  the  result  (ii.  13  ;  vii.  5).2  But  whatever  in- 
terpretation be  put  upon  the  words  of  this  keenly  sensitive  man,  such 
hypothesis  is  hopelessly  shattered  by  the  fact  that  our  second  Epistle 
explains  why  Paul  first  went  to  Corinth,  instead  of  travelling  past 
Corinth  to  Macedonia  (i.  15  f.,  23 ;  comp.  ii.  12,  14)  although  the  first 
Epistle  had  already  announced  this  to  be  his  intention  (xvi.  5  f.).s  If 
Titus  had  gone  to  Corinth  in  the  interval  with  a  new  letter,  not  only 
would  the  Church  have  learnt  from  him  why  Paul  had  not  come,  but 
the  epistle  which  according  to  ii.  1-4  he  wrote  instead  of  going  himself, 
can  only  have  been  our  first  one  in  which  he  tells  them  that  he  would 
come  to  Corinth  by  Macedonia.  But  in  this  case  ii.  5-11  can  only  refer 
to  a  matter  treated  of  in  this  epistle  (comp.  v.  9)  and  hence  only  to  the 


3  On  the  other  hand  there  is  no  foundation  for  the  statement  that 
our  Epistle  gives  no  occasion  for  accusing  Paul  of  self-commend- 
ation and  boasting,  since  passages  such  as  iv.  3  f.,  11  f.,  ix.  1  ff.,  xiv. 
18,  xv.  10  and  the  repeated  appeals  to  his  own  example  in  iv.  16  f., 
ix.  15-23,  26  f.,  x.  33,  xi.  1,  gave  ample  occasion  for  such  a  charge,  and 
2  Cor.  i.  12  seems  to  point  directly  to  1  Cor.  ii.  4  f.  But  apart  from 
the  doctrinal  discussions  of  the  long  epistle  so  calmly  argued  out,  to 
which  the  above  naturally  does  not  refer,  we  cannot  overlook  the  pro- 
found excitement,  the  cutting  severity  and  even  bitterness  with  which 
all  the  polemical  parts  of  the  epistle  are  written  (vi.  5  ff.,  xi.  17,  22, 
xiv.  36  ff.,  xv.  34),  in  particular  iii.  1-4,  iv.  6-13  and  v.  1  ff.,  to  which 
from  its  connection  with  2  Cor.  ii.  5  ff.,  Paul  evidently  makes  special 
reference.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  the  cold  objectivity  with  which 
he  treats  of  so  many  things,  makes  us  feel  the  absence  of  that  tone  of 
fatherly  love  that  the  Church  would  probably  expect  and  that  he  too 
would  no  doubt  rather  have  employed. 

8  To  make  the  change  of  the  plan  of  his  journey  consist  only  in  the 
circumstance  that,  instead  of  going  from  Corinth  straight  to  Macedonia, 
he  returned  to  Ephesus,  as  Mangold  does,  is  quite  impossible,  since  this 
would  have  been  a  matter  of  perfect  indifference  to  the  Corinthians.  ' 


282          TITDS'S  INTELLIGENCE   FROM   CORINTH. 

subject  of  the  fornicator  as  represented  in  the  first  Epistle,  to  which 
the  expression  chosen  (v.  6  f. :  T£  rotolrn?,  comp.  1  Cor.  v.  6)  lik/wise 
points,  as  even  Klopper,  the  ablest  representative  of  the  hypothesis, 
must  concede.  But  since  chap.  vii.  follows  np  the  renewed  exhortation 
not  to  defile  thorns  Ives  by  participation  in  heathen  doings  (vi.  14-18), 
the  accounts  of  Titus  mentioned  in  this  connection  can  only  refer  to  the 
partial  improvement  that  had  already  taken  place,  viz.  to  the  success  of 
the  first  Epistle,  iu  which  they  were  so  earnestly  warned  against  heathen 
BIDS,  and  therefore  vii.  12  must  refer  only  to  the  particular  case  men- 
tioned  in  it,  and  not  to  a  recent  personal  offence,  to  which  nothing  in  the 
context  leads.  We  must  therefore  continne  to  hold,  that  Titus,  who  at 
his  second  sending  to  Corinth  was  also  to  carry  on  the  work  of  collect* 
ing  (viii.  6),  which  certainly  does  not  point  to  increased  strain  as  the 
result  of  an  entirely  new  episode,  first  brought  tidings  as  to  the  success 
of  the  first  Epistle  and  the  circumstances  to  which  it  had  given  rise  in 
Corinth,  a  view  rightly  adhered  to  by  the  latest  expositors  of  the  Epistle 
(Hofmann,  Heinrici).  The  conjecture  that  he  took  with  him  an  epistle 
to  the  Church,  as  Bleek  and  Hofmann  maintain,  is  quite  untenable. 
On  the  controversies  respecting  the  relation  between  the  two  epistles 
comp.  also  Holtzmann,  Zeittchr.f.  win.  Theol,,  1879. 


§  21.    THE  SECOND  EPISTLB  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS. 

1.  The  news  brought  by  Titus  sounded  not  unfavourably 
from  one  point  of  view  ;  the  Apostle  felt  that  God  had  once 
more  triumphed  over  him,  putting  all  his  cares  to  shame 
(2  Cor.  ii.  14 ;  comp.  vii.  5  f.).  He  no  longer  regretted  hav- 
ing troubled  the  Church  by  his  letter;  for  it  had  led  to 
earnest  self-examination  and  the  manifestation  of  active 
zeal  for  repentance  and  amendment  (vii.  7-11).  Even  the 
fornicator,  on  whom  the  Church,  at  least  by  a  majority, 
had  pronounced  the  required  excommunication,  had  ear- 
nestly repented,  so  that  Paul  could  now  unhesitatingly 
assent  to  the  wish  of  the  Church  that  he  should  be  par- 
doned (ii.  5-11 ;  comp.  vii.  12).  Personally  Titus  had  met 
with  the  most  favourable  reception  (vii.  13  f.).  Such 
deeply  rooted  evils  as  were  to  be  found  in  the  Corinthian 
Church  could  not  indeed  be  done  away  at  one  stroke  ;  Paul 
fears  on  his  arrival,  by  no  means  close  at  hand,  to  find  rem- 


THE   SECOND  EPISTLE   TO  THE   COKINTHIANS.       283 

nants  of  the  old  party  strifes  (xii.  20),  lie  continually  warns 
them  against  close  intercourse  with  their  heathen  country- 
men and  the  inevitable  contamination  they  would  thus 
incur  (vi.  14-vii.  1),  he  fears  he  may  still  find  old  sinners 
who  have  not  repented  and  who  may  call  forth  his  apostolic 
punitive  authority  (xii.  2l-xiii.  3).  Nor  was  he  by  any 
means  certain  what  progress  the  work  of  collecting  had 
made,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  increasing  urgency  of  his 
recommendations.  Its  success  in  his  dear  Macedonian 
Churches  had  been  so  unexpectedly  brilliant  (viii.  1-5),  that 
the  Corinthian  Church  may  possibly  have  found  it  no  easy 
task  to  vie  with  them  and  to  satisfy  the  rising  demands  of 
the  Apostle.  It  is  certain  that  he  again  sent  Titus  before 
him,  with  two  other  brethren  (viii.  16-34),  that  when  he 
should  arrive  with  the  Macedonians  who  were  to  accom- 
pany him,  he  might  find  the  money  ready  to  be  delivered 
(ix.  3-5).  But  in  the  Church  as  a  whole  he  had  recovered 
confidence  (vii.  16). 

2.  One  thing  only  gave  the  Apostle  great  uneasiness,  viz. 
the  action  of  the  Jewish- Christian  agitators  in  Corinth. 
They  had  not  yet  indeed  come  forward  openly  with  their 
legal  doctrine,  as  Klopper  still  maintains ;  but  Paul  knew 
them  well  (ii.  17)  and  had  not  a  moment's  doubt  as  to  the 
final  aim  of  their  machinations.  If  their  object  was  to  un- 
dermine the  authority  of  the  Apostle,  to  throw  suspicion  on 
his  person  and  to  set  up  their  own  authority  in  place  of 
his,  they  only  succeeded  in  preparing  the  ground  in  which 
at  some  future  time  they  might  successfully  sow  their  seed ; 
and  in  proportion  as  the  struggle  for  the  cause  had  taken 
a  personal  character,  had  animosity  to  the  person  of  the 
Apostle  increased  to  an  unexpected  degr.ee.  Nor  had  his 
first  Epistle  by  any  means  a  favourable  influence  in  this 
respect.  His  readers  had  been  obliged  to  assent  to  the 
justice  of  what  he  said,  they  had  been  roused  to  salutary 
fear,  but  he  had  not  gained  their  love  by  his  letter;  a  pei> 


284  JUDAISTIC   AGITATORS  IN   COEINTH. 

ceptible  coolness  towards  him  had  ensued  (vi.  11  ff. ;  comp. 
xii.  15).  His  opponents  had  taken  advantage  of  the  impres- 
sion made  by  the  letter  to  alienate  the  hearts  of  the  readers 
still  further  from  him,  and  succeeded  in  turning  all  its  con- 
tents to  their  own  profit,  as  against  the  Apostle,  in  the  most 
artful  way.  They  described  its  severity  as  unfeeling  and 
wounding  arrogance,  his  indulgence  towards  them  on  hia 
previous  visit  as  personal  cowardice  (x.  1,  10),  and  his  holy 
zeal  as  eccentricity  (v.  13)  ;  his  repeated  references  to  his 
own  conduct  were  represented  as  vain  boasting,  an  attempt 
to  recommend  himself  since  he  had  no  one  else  to  recommend 
him  (iii.  1,  v.  12)  ;  while  the  change  in  the  plan  of  his 
journey  was  adduced  as  a  proof  of  insincerity  and  fickleness 
in  his  promises  (i.  12,  17).  But  they  had  gone  further. 
They  had  reproached  him  with  want  of  eloquence  (xi.  6), 
and  obscurity  in  his  manner  of  teaching  (iv.  3),  pointing 
to  the  opposition  he  so"  frequently  encountered,  to  his  per- 
secutions and  even  his  bodily  weakness  as  signs  of  his  having 
been  forsaken  by  God  (iv.  7  ff.,  vi.  4  ff.,  xii.  7  ff.).  The  fact 
that  he  did  not  allow  the  Church  to  support  him,  they  con- 
strued as  a  want  of  love  and  a  slight  to  this  Church  as  com- 
pared with  others  (xi.  9-xii.  15) ;  even  hinting,  perhaps 
with  malicious  slander  respecting  his  zeal  in  the  matter  of 
collections  (comp.  viii.  20),  that  he  probably  knew  how  to 
draw  profit  from  them  in  other  ways  (xii.  16  ff.).1  It  was 
necessary  to  put  an  end  to  these  proceedings  if  the  imminent 

1  We  find  no  trace'  in  this  epistle  of  his  claim  to  be  an  apostle  having 
been  contested,  certainly  not  in  comparison  with  the  primitive  apostles ; 
it  was  not  for  the  Jerusalem  apostles  as  such,  but  for  their  persons,  that 
his  opponents  claimed  the  authority  of  which  they  robbed  him.  In  every 
case,  even  in  xii.  11  f.,  he  compares  himself  with  the  disciples  of  Christ 
who  were  active  in  Corinth,  and  finds  it  necessary  to  set  forth  his  sin- 
cerity and  joyful  self-sacrifice  in  his  work,  his  gifts  and  his  successes,  as 
signs  of  the  Divine  calling  and  blessing,  as  contrasted  with  their  conduct, 
for  they  imposed  upon  the  Church  by  their  immoderate  boasting  (x. 
12  ff.)  and  the  boldness  of  their  demands  (xi.  19  ff.)  and  thus  only  too 
visibly  gained  ground  from  day  to  day. 


THE   SECOND  EPISTLE   TO  THE   COBINTHIANS.       285 

danger  of  seduction  like  that  of  the  Galatian  Churches  was 
to  be  obviated  and  the  moral  regeneration  of  the  Church 
that  had  begun  was  to  be  completed,  for  which  purpose  it 
was  requisite  that  his  shaken  authority  should  be  fully  re- 
established. To  this  end  Paul  wrote  the  second  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians.  The  calumnies  of  his  opponents  had 
wounded  him  deeply,  especially  as  they  touched  points  where 
his  best  intentions  had  been  twisted  by  them  into  the  very 
opposite.  He  wrote  under  great  excitement,  the  throbs  of 
which  are  felt  throughout  the  epistle ;  there  is  no  lack  of 
bitter  irony  or  of  sharp  words,  nor  yet  of  the  full  con- 
sciousness of  his  glorious  calling  and  the  free  gush  of  inspir- 
ation in  imparting  what  he  had  to  say  to  the  Church. 
Hence  a  certain  inequality  in  the  tone  of  the  epistle,  no 
other  showing  such  diversities  of  style  within  itself,  or  so 
much  that  is  peculiar  as  compared  with  all  the  rest.  The 
development  of  thought  is  not  always  so  systematic  as  else- 
where, it  is  capricious  and  the  Apostle  repeats  himself;  but 
the  design  of  this  magnificent  apology  is  sufficiently  clear 
and  transparent. 

3.  The  epistle  addresses  itself  at  the  beginning  not 
merely  to  the  Corinthian  Church,  but  to  all  the  Christians 
of  Achaia,  since  Paul  could  not  be  sure  that  the  Judaists 
who  Lad  lost  ground  in  the  metropolis,  were  not  seeking  to 
regain  it  in  the  province,  there  to  begin  their  machinations 
afresh  (2  Cor.  i.  1  f.).  He  commences  as  usual  with  a 
thanksgiving,  not  for  what  God  had  done  for  the  Church, 
but  for  the  comfort  he  had  experienced  when  God  delivered 
him  from  his  heavy  affliction  in  Asia  Minor  (i.  3-11).  His 
defence  of  himself  then  begins  forthwith,  but  it  is  directed 
in  the  first  instance  to  a  point  immediately  connected  with 
his  last  epistle,  inasmuch  as  he  writes  instead  of  coming 
to  them  as  he  had  formerly  promised  to  do.  He  had  given 
them  this  promise  (by  letter)  in  the  firm  confidence  that  it 
would  be  understood  as  expressing  his  earnest  wish  to  serve 


286  OCCASION   OP  THE   EPISTLE. 

them  as  much  as  possible,  not  foreseeing  that  between  the 
lines  they  would  read  certain  reservations  permitting  him 
easily  to  change  his  resolves  (i.  12-22).  The  true  reason 
why  he  had  not  come  to  them,  was  simply  that  he  could 
not  appear  at  Corinth  with  words  of  censure,  and  therefore 
preferred  to  write,  notwithstanding  the  difficulty  he  found 
in  so  doing,  for  he  knew  that  his  letter  would  trouble  them, 
however  little  such  might  be  his  intention  (i.  23-ii.  4). 
Only  in  proof  of  this  does  he  here  mention  the  matter  of 
the  fornicator,  in  which  his  severity  had  evidently  wounded 
them,  and  shows  by  his  readiness  to  pardon  the  repentant 
sinner  at  the  wish  of  the  Church,  how  unwilling  he  is  to 
distress  them  by  arbitrary  persistence  (ii.  5-11).1  But  when 
he  goes  on  to  tell  of  the  uneasiness  that  drove  him  from 
Troas  to  Macedonia,  because  of  his  not  finding  Titus,  who 
was  to  bring  him  tidings  from  Corinth  (ii.  12  f.),  it  is  fully 
shown  that  deep  anxiety  alone  had  prompted  him  to  write 
to  the  Corinthians.  Finally  he  thanks  God  for  having  freed 
him  from  this  anxiety,  which  could  only  have  been  done  by 
His  giving  the  desired  efficacy  to  His  word  in  their  hearts 
(ii.  14  ff.),  and  thus  concludes  the  introductory  thanks- 
giving, as  he  is  accustomed  to  begin  it,  with  a  glance  at 
what  God  had  done  for  the  Church.  He  not  only  connects 
it  with  the  first  Epistle,  and  while  defending  himself  on 
account  of  the  change  in  his  plan  of  journey,  shows  clearly 

1  The  supposition  that  Paul,  not  being  able  to  carry  oat  his  sentence 
of  punishment,  prudently  gave  this  turn  to  the  matter  in  order  to  avoid 
an  open  breach  with  the  Church,  and  to  preserve  his  authority  at  leaat 
in  form,  put  forward  by  Baur  and  some  other  expositors,  is  quite  at 
variance  with  the  text.  The  fact  that  he  himself  urges  them  by  a  formal 
decree  to  reinstate  in  the  love  of  the  brethren  one  who  had  so  deeply 
fallen  (ii.  8),  proves  that  he  had  actually  been  shut  out  from  the  Church, 
i.e.  excommunicated  (ii.  6),  aa  Paul  had  desired  (1  Cor.  v.  13),  since  he 
speaks  of  delivering  him  over  to  Satan  only  as  the  punishment  he 
desired  in  the  first  instance,  and  only  to  be  carried  out  in  agreement  with 
thn  whole  Church  (v.  3  ff.).  The  removal  of  the  ban  of  excommunication 
had  uot  yet  been  fully  effected,  but  was  only  desired  by  the  Churoh. 


THE   SECOND  EPISTLE   TO   THE    COBINTHIANS.       287 

the  object  with  which  he  had  written  it,  hut  gives  the 
Corinthians  a  glance  into  the  external  and  internal  struggles 
he  had  since  experienced.  The  mention  of  the  power  God 
had  given  to  his  word,  naturally  leads  him  to  the  thought 
that  this  was  only  possible  because  he  had  preached  the 
word  of  God  conscientiously,  in  a  pure  and  unadulterated 
form  (ii.  17). 

4.  Thus  his  self-defence  is  actually  begun  in  lofty  style. 
He  will  not  defend  himself  against  any  particular  accusation, 
but  by  a  description  of  the  nature  of  his  office  and  the  way 
in  which  he  fulfils  its  duties,  would  prove  that  he  is  what  he 
claims  to  be.  He  requires  no  letters  of  commendation  like  his 
opponents ;  for  the  Corinthian  Church  which  he  founded, 
is  itself  his  letter  of  recommendation.  Not  by  his  own 
power  did  he  found  it  however,  but  by  virtue  of  the  ability 
bestowed  upon  him  for  the  service  of  a  new  covenant,  the 
service  of  the  Spirit  (iii.  1-6).  The  glory  of  this  service 
consists  in  the  fact  that  it  does  not  bring  condemnation  and 
death  on  man  like  the  service  of  the  law  (which  nevertheless 
had  a  glory  of  its  own),  but  justification  and  life  ;  that  it  is 
not  a  transitory  but  a  permanent  thing  (iii.  6-11).  Hence 
the  unreserved  openness  and  freedom  of  speech  with  which 
he  carries  out  his  ministry,  while  Moses,  as  the  Apostle  con- 
cludes from  an  allegorical  interpretation  of  the  narrative  of 
the  veiling  of  Moses,  was  obliged  to  conceal  the  transitory 
character  of  his  office  from  the  children  of  Israel,  for  which 
reason  it  is  still  undiscernible  by  the  (hardened)  Jews,  until 
by  conversion  to  Christ  they  are  changed  with  all  believers 
into  His  spiritual  glory,  with  which  freedom  from  the  law 
is  given.  In  such  service  he  could  never  be  faint-hearted, 
since  it  is  by  the  pure  and  unadulterated  revelation  of  the 
truth  that  he  commends  himself  to  every  man's  conscience ; 
and  his  gospel  is  unintelligible  only  to  those  who  are  blinded 
by  the  Devil,  while  God  Himself  permits  the  light  of  His 
glory  to  be  seen  in  the  exalted  Christ  whom  he  preaches  (iv. 


288  ANALYSIS   OF  THE   EPISTLE. 

1-6) -1  Even  the  sorrows  that  his  ministry  brings  with  it 
have  no  power  to  discourage  him,  for  through  the  help  that 
he  experiences  they  only  redound  afresh  to  the  glory  of  his 
service  (iv.  7-15)  and  open  np  a  glance  into  an  eternal 
glory  which  the  true  servant  of  Christ  cannot  fail  to  attain, 
whether  his  wish  to  receive  a  heavenly  body  without  dying 
be  fulfilled  or  not  (iv.  16-v.  10).  His  declaration  at  the 
close  of  this  first  section,  that  in  view  of  the  judgment  of 
Christ,  his  sole  endeavour  is  to  please  Him,  leads  him  on  to 
speak  of  the  way  in  which  he  fulfils  the  duties  of  his  office 
as  a  servant  of  God  and  of  the  Church.  This  again  is  not 
intended  as  self-commendation,  but  only  as  a  means  of  en- 
abling them  to  defend  him  against  his  adversaries ;  and  he 
is  at  liberty  to  boast  of  his  ministration,  because  this  is  not 
his  own  work,  but  the  result  of  the  new  creation  that  he 
experienced  after  being  reconciled  with  God  through  the 
proof  of  Christ's  love  given  in  His  death  (v.  11-19).  And 
now  breaks  forth  with  unrestrained  fulness  the  glorious  de- 
scription of  his  official  life,  in  which  he  offers  this  reconcilia- 
tion to  all  that  have  not  yet  received  it,  exhorting  those  that 
have  received  it  not  to  do  so  in  vain  (v.  20-vi.  10).* 


1  While  Paul  unfolds  the  glory  of  his  ministry  by  comparing  it  with 
the  ministry  of  the  law,  he  shows  indirectly  that  it  is  not  he  but  those 
•who  set  up  the  law  again,  that  corrupt  the  gospel  (iv.  2 ;  comp.  ii.  17) ; 
and  that  by  representing  his  gospel  as  unintelligible,  they  only  put  them- 
selves on  a  par  with  the  hardened  unbelievers  from  whom  the  nature  of 
the  law  is  also  concealed  (ii.  3 ;  comp.  iii.  14). 

9  It  is  naturally  by  express  design  that  in  this  second  section  of  his 
apology  Paul  points  out  how  the  reconciliation  through  Christ's  death 
proclaimed  in  the  gospel  creates  of  itself  a  new  life,  and  therefore  super- 
Redes  the  teaching  of  the  law,  just  as  the  service  of  the  spirit  excludes 
that  of  the  letter  of  the  law.  But  it  is  quite  an  error  to  interpret  v.  16 
as  a  polemic  against  the  Judaistic  conception  of  the  person  of  Christ,  or 
as  referring  to  a  personal  relation  towards  Him,  for  all  that  it  contains  is 
a  declaration  on  the  part  of  Paul  that  just  as  he  no  longer  recognises 
Jesus  Himself  as  be  had  known  Him  in  His  earthly  human  form,  so  he 
judges  no  man  not  even  himself  according  to  his  earthly  human  nature, 
but  according  to  what  he  is  in  Christ  and  has  become  through  Him.  So 


THE   SECOND  EPISTLE   TO  THE   CORINTHIANS.      289 

5.  With  a  deeply  affecting  appeal  to  their  responsive  love 
•which  he  has  a  right  to  expect  and  yet  fails  to  obtain  from 
them  (vi.  11-13),  the  Apostle  turns  from  the  apologetic  to 
the  hortatory  part  of  his  epistle,  in  which  he  again  warns 
them  in  the  most  earnest  way  against  all  participation  in 
heathen  doings  (vi.  14-vii.  1).  But  desiring  that  there  be 
no  fresh  misunderstanding,  as  though  he  would  oppress 
them  by  unjust  condemnation  and  unreasonable  demands, 
he  now  for  the  first-  time  comes  to  speak  in  detail  of  the 
good  accounts  brought  by  Titus  that  had  given  him  new 
and  joyful  confidence  in  them  (vii.  2-16) -1  In  this  part  he 
dwells  mainly  on  the  subject  of  the  collections.  He  extols 
the  magnificent  liberality  shown  by  the  Macedonian  Churches 
(viii.  1-6),  and  urgently  exhorts  them  to  bring  the  work 
that  had  been  so  willingly  begun  to  a  corresponding  con- 
clusion (viii.  7-15).  He  therefore  once  more  sends  Titus 
to  them  (with  this  epistle)  accompanied  by  two  brethren 
deputed  by  their  Churches  to  convey  the  offering  of  love, 
admonishing  them  to  see  to  it  that  if  he  himself  came  with 
the  Macedonian  brethren,  the  Corinthians  should  not  put 
him  to  shame  before  those  to  whom  he  had  boasted  of 
their  willingness  (viii.  16-ix.  5).  He  then  urges  them 
once  more  to  make  the  collection  very  liberal,  referring  par- 

too  the  side-glance  he  takes  at  the  eccentric  fanaticism  he  was  accused 
of  (v.  13),  which  naturally  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  vision 
he  had  received  of  Christ  or  his  claim  to  apostleship  founded  thereon, 
is  just  as  incidental  as  his  reference  to  the  unintelligible  character  of 
his  gospel  (iv.  3),  since  here  he  purposely  avoids  all  detailed  polemic 
against  the  Judaists. 

1  Hence  it  is  clear  that  the  assertion  that  vi.  14-vii.  1  breaks  the  con- 
nection is  quite  incorrect.  This  clause  has  either  been  directly  regarded 
as  un-Pauline,  as  by  Schrader  and  Holsten,  or  as  an  interpolation  from 
another  epistle,  as  by  Ewald,  in  particular  from  the  first  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  which  was  lost,  as  by  Hilgenfeld  and  Franke  (comp.  §  19,  1, 
note  2).  So  too  Wieseler's  view  that  the  second  half  of  the  epistle,  from 
vii.  2  onward,  was  written  later  than  the  first  half,  after  the  arrival  of 
Titus  (§  20,  7,  note  1),  is  wrecked  by  ii.  14,  in  which  the  Apostle  had 
certainly  received  already  better  tidings. 

F 


290  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

ticularly  to  the  impression  it  would  make  on  the  recipients 
(ix.  6-15).» 

6.  The  third  part  begins  in  a  tone  altogether  different. 
For  his  own  part  he  is  willing  to  admonish  them  in  meek- 
ness and  gentleness;  bat  those  who  construe  this  as  weakness, 
and  accuse  him  of  walking  according  to  the  flesh,  oblige  him 
to  prove  that  he  can  wield  other  weapons  also  (x.  1-6). 
These  are  the  disciples  of  Christ  in  opposition  to  whom  he 
might  well  boast  of  his  apostolic  authority,  if  he  did  not 
wish  to  expose  himself  to  the  reproach  of  being  bold  only  in 
words  (x.  7—10).  In  direct  contrast  with  them  he  refrained 
from  seeking  by  immoderate  boasting  to  thrust  himself  into 
a  sphere  of  work  that  did  not  concern  him,  and  boasts  only 
of  the  success  the  Lord  had  actually  accorded  him,  by 
which  He  commends  himself  (x.  11-18).  It  is  only  from 
holy  zeal,  to  protect  the  Church  against  the  seduction  to 
which  she  yielded  too  readily,  that  he  would  commit  the 
folly,  and  compare  himself  with  these  very  chiefest  apostles, 
to  whom  he  is  perhaps  inferior  in  readiness  of  speech,  but 
certainly  not  in  knowledge  (xi.  1-6).  But  first  they  should 
tell  him  how  he  had  committed  an  offence  against  them  since 
he  had  preached  the  gospel  to  them  without  recompense 
(xi.  7-11)  ;  and  this  he  would  continue  to  do,  that  he  might 
see  whether  his  opponents  would  try  to  excel  him  in  dis- 
interestedness ;  for  their  former  conduct  showed  them  to  be 
only  false  apostles  and  servants  of  Satan  (xi.  12-15).  In  a 
new  and  ironical  apology  for  the  folly  of  such  self-praise, 

*  Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  difficulty  of  conceiving  that 
Paul  should  have  worked  BO  zealously  for  the  collection  and  have  spoken 
so  confidently  of  its  impression  on  the  recipients,  while  carrying  on  at 
the  same  time  such  bitter  strife  with  the  legitimate  deputies  of  the 
primitive  Church  and  its  authorities,  mainly  perhaps  with  the  latter. 
Since  Semlor's  Paraphrase  of  1776,  it  haa  sometimes  been  doubted  whether 
chaps  viii.  and  ix.,  in  which  there  is  so  much  repetition,  chap.  iz.  seeming 
to  form  a  fresh  beginning,  were  originally  connected ;  but  the  section  viii. 
16-24  has  no  reference  whatever  to  the  matter  in  question,  if  iz.  1-5  does 
not  belong  to  it. 


THE   SECOND  EPISTLE   TO  THE   CORINTHIANS.      291 

all  his  bitterness  of  feeling  with  regard  to  the  way  in  which 
the  Church  hacl  allowed  itself  to  be  imposed  on  and  plun- 
dered bj  them,  now  breaks  forth  (xi.  16-21)  ;  and  again 
contrasting  himself  with  them,  he  counts  tip  the  endless 
series  of  persecutions,  perils,  afflictions  and  privations  he 
had  suffered  in  the  service  of  the  Lord  (xi.  22-33).  He 
might  speak  also  of  the  exalted  experiences  of  grace  with 
which  he  had  been  favoured;  but  he  prefers  to  boast  of 
his  sicknesses  and  infirmities  because  by  them  the  power 
of  Christ  is  most  gloriously  manifested  in  him  (xii.  1-10). 
Again  pointing  out  that  they  themselves  had  driven  him 
to  the  folly  of  such  comparison  with  the  very  chiefest 
apostles,  he  comes  back  once  more  to  the  subject  of  his 
disinterestedness  so  basely  slandered,  which  he  will  not 
give  up,  and  which  his  messengers  manifested  as  well  as 
himself  (xii.  11-18).  It  is  only  the  apologetic  form  that 
makes  this  section  in  truth  the  sharpest  polemic  against 
the  disturbers  of  his  Church.1  After  thus  annihilating  his 
adversaries  who  interfere  with  his  full  influence  on  the 
Church,  he  turns  with  an  earnest  warning  to  those  who 
are  still  impenitent,  and  threatens  at  his  coming  to  make 
them  feel  his  full  apostolic  power  to  punish;  although  he 
prays  God  that  by  leading  them  to  repentance  He  may  take 
from  him  all  occasion  to  prove  that  he  is  not  deficient  in 
power  to  carry  out  his  threat  (xii.  19-xiii.  10).  He  con- 
cludes with  a  comprehensive  exhortation,  greetings  and  the 
benediction  (xiii.  11-13). 

7.  "When  Paul  wrote  this  epistle  he  was  staying  at  Mace- 
donia (vii.  5)  in  company  with  Timothy  (i.  1),  though 

1  This  so  fully  explains  the  suddenly  altered  tone,  the  anger  and 
bitterness  of  the  polemic,  that  there  was  no  motive  for  separating  chaps, 
x.-xiii.  from  the  remainder  of  the  epistle,  as  Weber  in  particular  does 
(de  Numero  Epp.  P.  ad  Cor.,  Witeb.,  1798),  after  the  example  of  Semler; 
or  even  for  supposing  them  to  be  the  alleged  lost  epistle  between  our  1st 
and  2nd  (§  20,  7),  as  Elopper,  Weizsacker,  Holtzmann,  Hilgenfeld,  and 
Heinrici  have  tried  to  prove  in  opposition  to  him. 


292  PAUL  IN  COEINTH. 

Philippi  is  found  in  the  old  subscriptions,  without  apparent 
reason.  On  the  other  hand  the  current  date  of  the  epistle 
is  very  uncertain.1  It  is  extremely  improbable  that  Titus, 
who  was  unquestionably  sent  to  Corinth  soon  after  the 
despatch  of  our  first  Epistle,  only  reached  the  Apostle  late 
in  the  autumn.  It  is  much  more  probable  that  the  epistle 
was  sent  off  in  midsummer  of  the  year  in  the  spring  of 
which  the  first  was  written.  That  it  fully  answered  its 
purpose  like  the  Galatian  Epistle  we  may  regard  as  certain, 
since  we  have  no  knowledge  of  any  further  correspondence 
with  the  Corinthians  on  the  part  of  Paul;  and  he  would 
hardly  have  gone  to  Corinth  without  having  received  tidings 
of  the  success  of  this  epistle.  There  was  still  sufficient  time 
for  him  to  extend  his  ministry  as  far  as  Illyria,  which  he 
already  had  in  view  (2  Cor.  x.  15  f.),  and  of  which  he 
makes  express  mention  in  Rom.  xv.  19.  It  is  certain  that 
he  finally  came  to  Corinth  with  Timothy  (Horn.  xvi.  21), 
and  there  spent  the  three  winter  months,  as  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  6 
he  proposed  to  do.  There  is  no  indication  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  of  his  having  first  brought  the  contest  with  his 

1  Though  Paul  repeatedly  speaks  of  the  time  when  the  Achaian 
Churches  declared  their  readiness  to  make  a  collection  themselves  for 
Jerusalem  as  the  previous  year  (dn-6  irtpvfft :  viii.  10 ;  ix.  2),  jet  we  do 
not  know  what  time  this  itself  was.  We  only  know  that  when  Paul  in 
1  Cor.  xvi.  1  f.,  touched  on  more  definite  arrangements  as  to  the 
mode  of  gathering  the  money,  the  Church  must  already  have  declared 
itself  agreed  as  to  the  principle  of  making  the  collection.  But  whether 
expression  was  first  given  to  this  in  the  Church -letter  brought  by 
Stephanas,  or  at  an  earlier  date  (perhaps  at  his  second  visit),  we  do  not 
know.  Nor  is  the  point  where  Paul  begins  the  year  up  to  which  the 
former  year  extended,  any  more  certain  ;  whether  he  begins  it  with  the 
mouth  Nisan,  in  accordance  with  the  religious  observances  of  the  Jews, 
as  Hofmann  supposes ;  or  iu  accordance  with  the  later  civil  custom, 
with  the  month  Tisri,  as  Meyer,  Kldpper  and  others  hold ;  or  after  the 
Macedonian  custom,  from  the  autumnal  equinox,  as  Wieseler  maintains 
(as  though  Paul  in  ix.  2  intended  to  repeat  the  letter  of  the  words  he 
had  spoken  to  the  Macedonians) ;  or,  as  appears  the  only  natural  thing 
in  a  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  from  the  summer  solstice,  in  accordance 
with  Attic-Olympic  usage,  as  Credner  believed. 


THE   CHUBCH  AT   ROME.  293 

Judaistic  adversaries  to  an  end  in  that  place ;  no  doubt  the 
latter  had  abandoned  the  field  after  the  discomfiture  our 
second  Corinthian  Epistle  had  inflicted  on  them.  He  dwelt 
with  Gaius,  whose  house  seems  to  have  formed  the  centre 
of  Corinthian  Church- life ;  and  was  on  the  best  terms  with 
Erastus  the  chamberlain  of  the  city,  and  Quartus,  who  doubt- 
less belonged  to  the  heads  of  the  Church  (Rom.  xvi.  23). 
In  the  coining  spring  he  would  take  ship  for  the  East,  in 
order  with  the  deputies  to  carry  to  the  Church  at  Jerusalem 
the  liberal  collection  he  had  in  view  (1  Cor.  xvi.  3  f.), 
before  taking  final  leave  of  his  Oriental  sphere  of  work 
(Bom.  xv.  25-28;. 

§  22.     THE  CHURCH  AT  ROME. 

1.  Towards  the  end  of  his  stay  at  Ephesus  Paul  had 
conceived  the  plan  of  visiting  Rome  on  his  return  from  the 
collection- journey  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xix.  21) ;  it  even  seems 
as  if  he  had  previously  entertained  this  wish,  and  had  only 
been  prevented  from  carrying  it  out  by  the  more  pressing 
problems  of  his  ministry  in  the  East  (Rom.  i.  13).  There 
can  be  no  question  that  the  importance  the  Church  of  the 
world's  metropolis  must  eventually  have  for  the  develop- 
ment of  Christianity,  and  which  everywhere  forced  itself 
on  Christian  consciousness  (i.  8),  was  clear  to  him  from 
the  beginning ;  for  which  reason  it  was  natural  he  should 
wish  to  enter  into  personal  relation  with  it  and  acquire 
an  influence  over  it  (i.  11  ;  xv.  29).  At  length  nothing 
seemed  to  stand  in  the  way  of  the  fulfilment  of  such  wish. 
Paul  might  regard  his  ministry  in  his  former  missionary 
sphere  as  closed.  From  Jerusalem  to  Illyria  he  had  preached 
the  gospel  (xv.  19),  and  Churclies  had  been  founded  by 
him  at  every  focus  of  spiritual  life,  whence  Christianity 
might  easily  spread  of  itself.  Esteeming  it  his  special  task 
to  lay  the  first  foundation  in  all  places,  he  might  naturally 


294          HISTORICAL  POSITION   OP  THE   EPISTLE. 

think  there  was  no  further  scope  for  his  peculiar  work  in 
the  East ;  and  so  direct  his  glance  to  the  far  West,  where, 
in  Spain,  he  would  again  begin  Ids  missionary  labour  on 
new  soil  (xv.  20-24).  In  addition  to  this,  he  might  hope 
that  by  his  victories  in  Galatia  and  Corinth  he  had  given 
his  Judaistic  adversaries  a  permanent  distaste  for  attempting 
to  trouble  his  Gentile-Christian  Churches ;  and  might  there- 
fore leave  the  work  of  his  former  mission  in  perfect  security. 
Moreover  he  was  on  the  point  of  forming  a  bond  of  love 
between  the  free  Gentile  Churches  and  the  primitive  Church 
that  still  adhered  to  the  law,  by  the  large  collection  he  was 
bringing  to  Jerusalem,  which,  if  favourably  received  (xv.  31), 
might  prevent  a  breach,  in  case  Jewish- Christian  fanatics 
should  perchance  try  to  stir  up  the  latter  against  the  former 
(xv.  25  ff.).  On  his  journey  to  Spain  however,  it  would 
be  quite  natural  that  he  should  pass  through  Rome,  and 
there  endeavour  to  satisfy  his  long-cherished  wish  (xv.  24, 
28,  32).  It  is  this  visit  that  Paul  now  announces  to  the 
Church  at  Rome  in  his  epistle;  hence  it  was  written  im- 
mediately before  he  set  out  on  the  journey  to  Jerusalem 
(xv.  25). 

In  accordance  with  the  above  the  historical  position  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  is  BO  perfectly  clear  that  Dr.  Paulus,  who  concludes  from 
XT.  19  that  it  was  written  in  a  town  of  Illyria,  alone  mistakes  it  (de 
Orig.  Ep.  Pauli  ad  Rom,  Jena,  1801).  The  only  doubtful  point  is 
whether  it  was  written  in  Corinth,  as  is  generally  supposed,  or  in  the 
port  of  Genohrea,  in  which  case  the  deaconess  of  the  latter  place  was 
probably  its  bearer  (xvi.  1),  while  Paul  waited  there  for  an  opportunity 
of  taking  ship  to  the  East,  and  had  therefore  actually  begun  his  journey 
(xv.  25).  The  fears  to  which  he  gives  expression  in  xv.  30  f.,  are  a 
strong  argument,  however,  in  favour  of  the  assumption  that  he  already 
had  intelligence  of  the  plots  that  led  him  afterwards  to  give  up  the 
direct  sea- route  to  Syria  and  to  take  the  land-route  through  Macedonia 
(Acts  xx.  3) ;  while  the  greetings  that  he  sends  from  Corinth  (Rom.  xvi. 
21-23)  might  have  been  given  to  him  in  that  place,  if  we  suppose  that 
these  brethren  did  not  accompany  him  as  far  as  the  harbour.  The  fact 
that  there  are  so  few  greetings,  and  that  the  Church  as  such  sends  none, 
is  str  nglj-  in  favour  of  this  view.  In  any  case  the  epistle  was  written 


THE   CHURCH   AT  RC-Mll.  295 

Boon  after  the  beginning  of  the  sea-voyage ;  and  if  the  Corinthian  Epistlea 
belong  to  the  year  58  (§  20,  1,  note  2),  in  the  spring  of  59. 

2.  Respecting  the  origin  of  the  Church  at  Home  we  have 
no  certain  knowledge.  We  know  only  that  there  was  a 
large  Jewish  population  at  Rome,  especially  after  the  time 
of  Pompey,  that  had  reached  a  state  of  freedom  and  pros- 
perity and  stood  in  close  relation  with  the  whole  Jewish 
Diaspora  as  well  as  with  their  Palestinian  home.  In  both 
there  were  communities  of  believing  Jews,  and  it  would 
have  been  strange  if  the  burning  question  whether  the 
Messiah  had  come  or  not,  had  not  found  its  way  into  the 
bosom  of  the  Jewish  body  at  Rome.  Whether  this  be 
accounted  for  by  the  presence  of  Roman  pilgrims  at  the 
first  Christian  Pentecost  (Acts  ii.  10),  or  by  the  dispersion 
that  followed  the  first  persecution  of  the  Christians  (viii.  1 ; 
xi.  19),  is  quite  a  matter  of  indifference ;  the  ways  that  led 
Roman  Jews  to  Jerusalem  or  to  other  places  where  there 
were  Jewish-Christian  Churches,  and  believing  Jews  to 
Rome,  are  too  many  to  permit  of  their  being  taken  into 
special  consideration.  The  idea  that  a  Church  of  believers 
could  not  originate  without  actual  apostolic  agency  is  quite 
unhistorical. 

It  was  not  till  the  end  of  the  second  century  that  currency  was  given 
to  that  view  of  the  Apostolic  Churches  (comp.  §  8, 2)  which  ascribed  the 
actual  founding  of  the  Church  at  Rome  to  Peter  and  Paul,  and  finally  to 
Peter  alone,  who  was  said  to  have  coine  to  Rome  as  early  as  the  second 
year  of  the  Emperor  Claudius  (A.D.  42)  and  to  have  been  bishop  there  for 
a  period  of  25  years  (comp.  Hieron.,  de  Vir.  III.,  1,  after  Enseb.  Chronik., 
and  more  specific  details  in  §  39, 4).  But  it  can  be  proved  that  Peter  was 
still  at  Jerusalem  in  the  year  44  (Acts  xii.  4)  and  52  (Acts  xv.  7 ;  Gal. 
ii.  9),  while  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  knows  nothing  of  his  presence  at 
Rome,  since  he  receives  neither  mention  nor  greeting,  nor  is  he  referred 
to  hi  the  Acts  (xxviii.  15)  or  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  of  the  year 
60.  In  Iren.,  Adv.  Harr.,  III.  3,  3,  and  Eusebius  himself  (H.  E.,  3,  2,  4), 
Linus  appears  rather  to  have  been  the  first  Roman  bishop,  who  according 
to  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  (VII.  46,  1)  was  even  appointed  by  Paul 
himself.  Hence  this  tradition  of  the  Catholic  Church,  that  has  been 


296     JEWISH   CHRISTIAN   ORIGIN   OF   THE   EPISTLE. 

defended  even  by  Protestants,  as  Bertholdt  and  Thiersch,  has  been  given 
up  by  unprejudiced  Catholic  theologians  like  Hug  and  Feilmoser ;  and 
the  most  that  can  be  said  is  that  the  oldest  Roman  Church  was  indirectly 
a  Petrine  foundation,  inasmuch  as  the  Jewish  Christians  of  that  place 
always  go  back  in  some  direct  or  indirect  way  to  Jerusalem,  and  to  Peter 
as  the  head  of  the  Church. 

The  first  historical  trace  of  Christianity  in  Rome  is  to  be 
found  in  the  narrative  of  Suetonius,  according  to  which  the 
Emperor  Claudius  Judceos  impulsore  Chresto  assidue  ttimul- 
tuantes  Roma  expulit  (Claud.  25,  comp.  Acts  xviii.  2  and 
with  it.  §  15,  6).1  Even  if  the  Claudian  edict  were  only 
carried  out  imperfectly  or  soon  again  recalled  (comp.  Dio 
Cassius,  Hist.,  60,  6),  this  crisis  must  have  been  of  decisive 
importance  for  the  Christian  Church  at  Borne ;  for  when  by 
degrees  its  members  re-assembled,  they  had  every  induce- 
ment to  separate  entirely  from  the  synagogue  lest  they 
should  again  be  involved  in  its  fortunes.2  But  the  grand 
missionary  work  of  Paul  in  Macedonia,  Greece  and  Asia 
Minor  came  after  this  edict.  Many  who  had  emigrated 

1  The  assumption  that  reference  is  here  made  to  a  Jewish  agitator  of 
the  name  of  Chrestus,  still  adopted  by  Wieseler,  Meyer,  Hofmann  and 
others,  cannot  be  entertained.  It  is  much  more  probable  that  it  is  to 
the  continual  disturbances  within  the  Jewish  body  excited  by  the  dispute 
regarding  the  so-called  Christ  (or,  according  to  the  popular  Roman 
pronunciation,  Chrestus)  that  Suetonius  refers  as  the  cause  of  the  final 
expulsion  of  the  Jews.  It  is  evident  that  the  believing  Jews  were  affected 
by  this  measure  as  well  as  the  unbelieving,  the  native  Jews  as  well  aa 
the  proselytes,  since  the  latter  certainly  took  just  as  much  part  in 
religions  quarrels ;  and  their  Roman  citizenship  was  the  less  adequate  to 
their  protection,  Beyschlag  thinks,  because  many  native  Jews  also  had 
this  privilege  after  the  time  of  Augustus. 

3  We  find  a  reminiscence  of  this  still  preserved  in  the  account  of 
Acts  xxviii.  22,  according  to  which,  when  Paul  arrives  at  Rome  as  a 
prisoner  and  desires  to  come  to  an  understanding  with  the  chief  of  the 
Jews,  these  latter  make  no  allusion  to  the  Christian  Church  at  Rome, 
showing  a  very  superficial  acquaintance  with  the  sect  generally. 
Though  we  cannot  explain  this,  with  Neander,  from  the  fact  that  Rome 
was  a  large  city,  or  ascribe  it  to  intentional  reserve,  yet  it  is  arbitrary 
to  assume  that  the  statement  naturally  formulated  by  the  author  is  an 
invention  without  any  historical  foundation. 


THE   CHUECH  AT  HOME.  297 

thither  must  have  been  converted  by  Paul  and  have  returned 
as  Pauline  Christians ;  while  many  of  the  heathen  who  had 
been  converted  by  Paul  must  have  come  to  Rome  and  have 
joined  themselves  to  the  Christian  Church  that  held  aloof 
from  the  synagogue.  Here,  where  the  national  religion 
had  long  fallen  into  contempt,  and  the  tendency  to  mono- 
theism was  widely  spread,  their  free  Christianity  must  have 
made  a  successful  propaganda;  the  Gentile- Christian  element 
preponderating  more  and  more  in  the  Church  although  it 
certainly  contained  a  not  inconsiderable  number  of  believing 
Jews.8  Moreover  it  is  not  consistent  with  Paul's  principles 
(comp.  2  Cor.  x.  13  ff. ;  Rom.  xv.  20)  that  he  should  have 
turned  with  an  epistle  like  ours  to  a  Church  which,  as  then 
constituted,  did  not  consist  substantially  of  his  immediate 
or  proximate  disciples. 

3.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  too  the  Church  appears 
as  essentially  Gentile-Christian.  Paul  makes  the  aTroo-roX^ 
ev  ira.<rtv  TOIS  Wvvrw  (ev  ots  core  xai  fyuts  /cX^roi  'I^o-ov  Xpiorou) 
bestowed  on  him  his  reason  for  turning  to  believers  in  Rome 
(i.  5  ff.).  He  desires  to  have  fruit  among  them  also  even 
as  among  other  Wvt\.  Because  he  feels  himself  a  debtor  to 
Greeks  and  barbarians,  wise  and  unwise,  he  is  ready  /cai-fyuv 
rots  ev  'Pw/xr;  evayyeXiarao-Oai ;  for  he  is  not  ashamed  of  the 
Gospel  (i.  12-16). A  In  his  argument  Paul  sets  out  from  pre- 

•  There  is  no  reason  for  regarding  the  Church  as  exclusively,  though 
indirectly,  a  Pauline  foundation,  whether  by  the  instrumentality  of 
Titus  (comp.  Kneucker,  Die  Anfange  des  r'dmischen  Christenthums  : 
Karlsruhe,  1881)  or  by  that  of  Gentile  Christians  from  Antioch  as 
Godet  maintains  in  his  Commentary,  nor  is  it  necessary  entirely  to 
deny  its  Jewish-Christian  origin.  Bespecting  its  organization,  we  learn 
nothing  whatever  from  Horn.  xii.  8 ;  but  we  are  not  justified  in  con- 
cluding that  it  had  no  organization  whatever,  either  from  the  absence  of 
the  designation  tKK\i)<rla  in  Bom.  i.  7  (comp.  §  16,  4,  note  2)  or  from 
the  fact  that  it  was  not  founded  by  an  apostle. 

1  In  vain  has  an  attempt  been  made  to  include  the  Jews  under  rd.  £ Ovy , 
contrary  to  undoubted  Pauline  usage,  and  to  claim  for  Paul  a  universal 
apostleship  in  manifest  contradiction  to  Gal.  ii.  8  f. ;  or,  taking  a  geo- 
graphical view  of  the  partition -treaty  with  the  primitive  apostles,  to 


298  HEADERS  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

misses  that  were  incontrovertible  only  to  the  consciousness 
of  Pauline  Gentile- Christians  (iii.  27-30)  ;  in  iv.  6  he  speaks 
of  Abraham  as  ira-njp  TrdvTwv  rjfi&v  in  a  connection  in  which 
he  classes  his  readers  with  himself  and  the  Jewish- Chris- 
tians, therefore  as  Gentile-Christians ;  he  characterizes 
their  past  life  as  a  bondage  to  aKa.8ap<ria  and  dvo/xta  (vi.  19). 
He  could  not  possibly  have  appealed  exclusively  to  his  own 
person  in  support  of  his  statement  that  the  people  of  Israel 
as  such  wonld  not  be  rejected  (xi.  1)  if  he  had  been  writing 
to  a  Church  that  was  entirely  Je wish- Christian ;  or  have 
spoken  of  the  Jews  so  emphatically  as  his  flesh,  in  contrast 
•with  his  readers  (xi.  14).  He  expressly  addresses  them  as 
heathen  (xi.  13 :  v/uv  Se  Aeyu>  rots  cdvco-iv),  and  the  assump- 
tion that  he  refers  only  to  the  Gentile- Christian  portion, 
which,  moreover,  is  excluded  by  the  form  of  the  expression, 
is  already  refuted  by  the  fact  that  the  term  aS«A<£oi  (xi.  25), 
•which  undoubtedly  applies  to  the  Church  as  a  whole,  is 
followed  by  a  v/xct?  that  clearly  points  to  those  addressed  as 
having  formerly  been  heathen  (xi.  28,  30).  But  the  way  in 
which  the  exhortation  to  the  majority  of  the  Church  to  bear 
the  infirmities  of  the  weak  (xv.  1  ff.),  supported  by  a  glance 
at  the  relation  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  to  salvation  (xv.  8  f.), 
shows  beyond  a  doubt  that  it  consisted  mainly  of  Gentiles. 
Finally  he  once  more  justifies  himself  for  writing  to  them 
by  an  appeal  to  his  apostleship  to  the  Gentiles  (xv.  15  f.).8 
Moreover,  all  that  we  know  of  the  later  history  of  the 

explain  the  address  by  assuming  that  he  wrote  to  them  because  they 
lived  in  the  great  world,  and  to  interpret  i.  13  as  implying  that  he  wished 
to  carry  on  the  Gentile  mission  in  their  midst,  whereas  L  16  expressly 
speaks  of  a  gospel  addressed  to  themselves  of  which  he  is  not  ashamed, 
although  they  belong  to  the  educated. 

*  Mangold  has  with  great  ingenuity  endeavoured  to  set  aside  this 
decisive  passage  by  finding  in  it  only  an  excuse  for  certain  passages  of 
the  epistle  in  which  Panl  had  energetically  combated  Jewish-Christian 
pretensions  also  shared  by  his  readers,  in  the  intereit  of  the  Gentile- 
Christian  mission  with  which  he  had  been  entrusted,  such  as  chaps, 
ii.,  ix.,  x.,  making  xv.  1  ff.  refer  to  the  opposition  between  a  Jewish* 


THE   CHURCH  AT  ROME.  299 

Roman  Church  agrees  with  this.  The  fact  that  the  perse- 
cution under  Nero  was  directed  against  the  Christians  as 
such,  in  distinction  from  the  Jews  who  were  at  first  favoured 
by  Nero,  is  an  argument  not  only  for  the  separation  of  the 
(Jewish-Christian)  Church  from  the  synagogue,  but  also  for 
the  essentially  Gentile-Christian  character  of  the  Church ; 
and  Paul's  two  years'  sojourn  in  Rome  as  a  captive  could  not 
possibly  have  caused  the  centre  of  gravity  in  the  Church  to 
be  completely  transferred  from  the  Jewish  to  the  Gentile- 
Christian  side.  The  so-called  first  Epistle  of  Clement  also 
shows  that  the  Roman  Church  of  that  time  was  essentially 
of  a  Pauline  Gentile-Christian  character.  Nor  can  Man- 
gold's further  conclusions  respecting  the  history  of  the 
Church  in  the  second  century,  even  if  better  attested  than  is 
the  case,  prove  anything  with  regard  to  the  Pauline  time, 
since  the  fact  that  Gentile  Christianity  had  then  gained  the 
upper  hand  is  not  disputed. 

It  is  only  since  Baur  (following  Koppe's  Nov.  Test.,  3rd  edit.,  G6tt., 
1824)  in  the  Tubinger  Zeitschrift  (1836, 3),  owing  to  his  conception  of  the 
aim  and  occasion  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  declared  the  Church  to 
have  been  essentially  Jewish-Christian,  that  the  question  of  its  character 
has  taken  the  form  of  scientific  controversy.  He  was  immediately 
followed  not  only  by  his  actual  pupils  as  Schwegler,  Volkmar,  Holsten, 
and  Hilgenfeld,  but  also  by  commentators  such  as  Erehl,  Baurngarten- 
Crusius,  v.  Stengel,  and  critics  as  Keuss,  Hausrath,  Krenkel,  Kenan, 
Lipsius  (in  the  Protestantenbibel),  Mangold  (der  Romerbrief,  Marb.,  1866), 
Seyerlen  (Kntst.  u.  erste  Schieksale  der  Christengeia.  in  Bom,  Tttb.,  1874), 
Schenkel  (Bibellex,  V.,  1875),  even  Thiersch  and  Sabatier.  He  encoun- 
tered opposition,  it  is  true  (comp.  Kling  in  d.  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1837,  2 ; 
Delitzsch  and  Kiggenbach  in  d.  Zeitschr.  filr  luth.  Theol.,  1849,  4  :  1868, 
1 ;  Th.  Schott,  der  Romerbrief,  Erl.,  1858),  while  most  commentators 
adhered  to  the  customary  view.  Beysohlag  attempted  a  mediating  hy- 
pothesis, making  the  Church  consist  entirely  of  proselytes  (Stud.  «.  Krit. , 
18(54,  4;  comp.  also  W.  Schultz,  Jahrb.  fur  deutsche  Theol,  1876,  1); 
but  in  the  Jahrb.  filr  protest.  Theol.  of  1876,  2,  Holtzmann  asserted  with 
some  plausibility  that  the  older  view  had  been  superseded  by  more  recent 

Christian  majority  and  minority,  and  thus  doing  away  with  all  motive 
for  mentioning  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  xv.  8  f. 


300  LATER  HISTORY  OP  THE   CHURCH. 

investigation.  Since  then  a  retrograde  movement  has  set  in,  mainly 
through  the  instrumentality  of  Weizsacker  (Jahrb.  fiir  dent*che  Theol., 
1876,  2).  Not  only  has  the  essentially  Gentile-Christian  character  of  the 
Church  been  recognised  by  Wieseler  (zur  Gach.  der  NTlichen  Schrift, 
Leipz.,  1880),  Weiss  (Gth  edition  of  Meyer's  Komm.,  1881),  Grale  (fiber 
Veranlatgung  und  Zveck  det  HSmerbriefs,  Tub.,  1881),  Pfleiderer  (Jahrb. 
fVar  protest.  Theol.,  1882,  4)  and  Bleibtreu,  die  8  enten  Kapp.  det  Rdmtr- 
brieft,  Gott.,  1884) ;  but  Schiirer,  Hamack  and  others  have  also  inciden- 
tally expressed  themselves  in  favour  of  this  view ;  even  Holtzmanu  (Jahrb. 
ftir  protest.  Theol. ,  1886,  1)  no  longer  making  very  decided  opposition ; 
•while  Mangold  (der  Romerbrief  und  teine  geschichtlichen  Vorawtetzuruj, 
Marb.,  1884)  makes  a  fresh  attempt  to  defend  the  Tubingen  view,  in 
which  the  school  of  Hofmaim  seems  now  to  participate  (K.  Schmidt,  die 
Anfange  des  Chrittenthumt  in  Rom.,  1879 ;  Th.  Zahn,  d.  Hebr&ertbriff, 
in  Herz'a  R.-Enc.,  V.,  1879).  The  designation  of  Abraham  in  iv.  1  as 
i-poirdrvp  yuCiv,  cannot,  after  1  Cor.  z.  1,  be  adduced  as  an  argument 
for  the  Jewish-Christian  character  of  the  Church,  so  that  vii.  1-6  is  the 
only  passage  to  which  Beyrchlag  and  Mangold  can  appeal  with  any  show 
of  reason,  and  this  they  repeatedly  do,  but  in  vain.*  The  assumption 
that  the  exhortations  in  chap.  xiii.  1  ff.  presuppose  Jewish-Christian 
opposition  to  the  Roman  supremacy  (although  later  criticism  regards 
1  Pet.  ii.  13  ff.  as  addressed  exclusively  to  Gentile  Christians)  overlooks 
the  fact  that  the  Jews  might  reject  it  in  Palestine  on  theocratic  grounds, 
but  not  on  heathen  soil,  so  that  all  the  arguments  drawn  from  the  Roman 
Church  prayer  in  Clement's  Epistle  (cap.  61)  in  favour  of  the  continu- 
ance of  a  Jewish-Christian  element  in  the  Church,  fall  to  the  ground. 

4.  The  main  interest  of  the  dispute  regarding  the  national 
character  of  the  Church  at  Rome  consists  in  the  fact  that  ii 

•  It  was  possible  for  Paul  to  speak  of  the  Roman  Gentile  Christians  it 
vii.  1  as  knowing  the  law,  even  if  reference  were  actually  made  there  to 
the  Mosaic  law,  since  this  was  undoubtedly  read  at  their  assemblies  for 
worship  (Gal.  iv.  21 ;  oomp.  §  15,  2,  note  2) ;  but  it  is  probable  that  a 
knowledge  of  jurisprudence  is  here  meant,  since  the  ordinance  of  which 
he  there  treats  is  by  no  means  peculiar  to  the  Mosaic  law.  The  argu- 
ment for  the  essential  freedom  of  the  Christian  from  the  law  has  exactly 
the  same  significance  for  Gentile  as  for  Jewish  Christians,  since  the 
former  were  also  under  obligation  to  the  law  as  soon  as  they  turned  to  the 
God  of  Israel,  if  such  obligation  had  any  permanence  at  all ;  for  whicr 
reason  it  is  BO  emphatically  carried  out  in  the  Galatian  Epistle  (§  18,  5, 
note  2).  The  passage  vii.  6  f.  does  not  say  that  the  readers  stood  with 
him  under  the  law,  but  that  they  were  protected  by  their  common 
freedom  from  the  law  against  the  old  sinful  state  which  the  letter  of  the 
law  only  fostered  and  enhanced  and  would  always  again  call  forth  aid 
enhance. 


THE   CHURCH  AT  BOMB.  301 

has  been  thought  impossible,  assuming  the  correctness  of  the 
traditional  view  as  to  its  Gentile-Christian  character,  to  find 
any  historical  motive  sufficient  to  account  for  the  compre- 
hensive doctrinal  discussions  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
with  its  apologetic  and  polemic  allusions.  The  view  most 
prevalent  in  Commentaries,  viz.  that  the  Apostle  designed  to 
give  a  statement  of  his  doctrinal  system  (comp.  Huther: 
ZwecJc  und  Lthalt  der  11  ersten  Kap.  des  Itdmerbriefs,  1846), 
is  negatived  by  the  fact  that  important  points  are  scarcely 
even  touched  upon;  and  that  from  this  point  of  view  the  sec- 
tion chaps,  ix.-xi.  would  be  quite  unexplained.  Hence  Baur, 
following  the  Commentary  of  Ambrosiaster,  sought  to  class 
our  epistle  with  the  great  Pauline  polemic  writings  against 
Jewish  Christianity,  which  alone  he  regarded  as  genuine ; 1 
while  Schwegler  looked  upon  it  as  a  systematic  apology  for 
Paulinism  against  Jewish  Christianity.  But  even  Mangold 
was  constrained  to  deny  the  anti-Pauline  character  of  Ro- 
man Jewish- Christianity,  and  to  limit  the  aim  of  the  epistle 
to  a  desire  on  Paul's  part,  by  a  statement  of  his  doctrine 
of  salvation  and  a  vindication  of  his  missionary  practice,  to 
induce  the  Roman  Church  to  give  up  their  scruples  regard- 
ing his  teaching  and  the  Gentile  mission ;  while  Beyschlag, 
in  direct  opposition  to  Baur,  found  that  the  Church  consist- 
ing of  former  converts,  though  friendly  to  Paul,  had  a 
Petrine  tendency  that  only  required  raising  to  the  full  height 
of  Pauline  apprehension  of  the  Gospel  method  and  the 

1  Hence  Baur  found  that  the  Eoman  Epistle  represented  a  peculiar 
form  of  (Ebionite)  anti-Puulinism  which  had  abandoned  the  requirement 
of  circumcision  and  fulfilment  of  the  law  on  the  part  of  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians as  well  as  opposition  to  the  apostleship  of  Paul,  but  perceived  in 
bis  Gentile  mission  an  abridgment  of  the  theocratic  prerogatives  of  Israel, 
and  betrayed  an  affinity  to  the  tendency  of  the  Clementine  Homilies  in 
rejecting  worldly  authorities  as  well  as  the  use  of  flesh  and  wine.  If  the 
section  ix.-xi.  had  not  hitherto  received  full  justice — being  regarded  more 
in  the  light  of  a  corollary — he  saw  in  it  the  proper  nucleus  of  the  epistle, 
though  he  somewhat  modified  his  view  afterwards  and  endeavoured  to 
apprehend  the  epistle  rather  as  a  whole. 


302          POLEMIC   CONCEPTION   OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

world-historical  Divine  plan  of  salvation.9  But  how  ever  we 
may  soften  the  antithesis  of  those  views  in  the  Church  that 
were  in  alleged  opposition  to  the  Apostle,  it  is  incontestable 
that  he  never  directly  attacks  them.  On  the  contrary,  he 
freely  joins  in  the  universal  praise  of  the  faith  of  the  Church, 
thanking  God  for  it,  and  unmistakably  implies  that  the 
TVTTOS  SiSa^s  they  had  obeyed  was  his  free  doctrine  (vi.  17), 
just  as  to  themselves  he  had  formerly  appealed  to  his  gospel. 
He  most  distinctly  takes  for  granted  that  they  know  and 
share  his  doctrine  (xv.  24  f.)  ;  i.  12  in  particular  would  be 
a  captatio  lenevolentice  if  Paul  regarded  the  Church  as  occu- 
pying a  standpoint  in  any  way  hostile  to  his  views,  or  as 
having  not  yet  understood  them.  The  truly  polemio  parts 
of  the  epistle  cannot  be  explained  on  the  presumption 
of  a  Jewish-Christian  tendency.  For  the  fact  that  the  law 
avails  nothing  if  it  is  not  kept,  nor  circumcision  unless  fol- 
lowed by  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  (chap,  ii.),  that  fidelity  to 
God  is  not  made  of  no  effect  by  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews, 
and  that  the  law  condemns  the  Jews  as  sinners  (iii.  1-20), 
that  the  gracious  election  of  God,  as  shown  in  Isaac  and 
Jacob,  and  the  hardening  of  Pharaoh,  are  not  unrighteous  acts 
on  the  part  of  God,  nor  a  breach  of  His  promises  (ix.  6-21), 
that  the  rejection  of  unbelieving  Israel  is  self-incurred  (ix. 
30-x.  21)  ;  all  these  are  things  that  no  Jewish-Christian 
ever  disputed,  and  that  cannot  be  alleged  against  such  with 
polemic  design.3 

5.  As  the  Roman  Church  certainly  contained  a  Jewish- 

*  These  points  of  view  could  be  adopted  not  only  by  Sabatier  and 
Thiersch  who  regarded  the  Church  as  Jewish-Christian,  bat  even  by 
Biggenbach  (ibid.),  who  considered  it  as  essentially  Gentile- Christian, 
while  representing  the  Apostle  as  having  respect  to  the  scruples  of  the 
Jewish-Christian  minority. 

*  The  patristic  expositors  judged  more  correctly  that  this  polemio 
attacks  Jewish  pretensions  which,  even  according  to  Eichhorn,  Schmidt, 
Schott  and  others  were  directed  mainly  against  the  call  of  the  heathen  ; 
while    Bleibtreu   (iliid.)   finds    the  most    refined    anti-Jewish   polemic 
throughout  the  doctrinal  discussion;  though  he  too  is  unable  to  explain 
what  this  had  to  do  with  a  Gentile-Christian  Church. 


THE   CHUECH  AT  BOMB.  303 

Christian  element,  it  was  possible  to  make  a  conciliatory 
tendency  the  historical  occasion  of  the  epistle.  This  had 
already  been  done  by  Hug  and  Berthold,  Delitzsch  and 
Bleek ;  and  in  the  same  way  Hilgenfeld  sought  to  modify 
Baur's  conception,  not  only  distinguishing  the  Roman  Jewish- 
Christians  from  the  fanatics  of  Jerusalem,  but  also  putting 
a  higher  estimate  on  the  Gentile-Christian  section,  and  mak- 
ing the  internal  friction  of  these  two  parties  the  proper 
occasion  of  the  epistle.  In  like  manner  Volkmar  (Paulus 
Romerbrief,  Zurich,  1875)  makes,  the  Apostle's  aim,  in  his 
polemic  and  pacific  epistle,  consist  in  the  effort  to  reconcile 
a  minority  that  was  still  restricted  by  Judaism  with  his  free 
gospel  of  salvation  and  its  success  in  the  heathen  world,  and 
by  restoring  peace  with  a  small  but  over-zealous  Pauline  mi- 
nority, to  prevent  tho  Church  falling  to  pieces;  but  he  never- 
theless succeeds  in  pointedly  combining  this  view  with  the 
older  conception  of  the  epistle  as  a  calmly  reasoned  doctrinal 
system  of  pure  Christianity  sharply  arranged  feven  in  its 
minutest  details.  Holstein  too  regards  the  epistle  as  an  essen- 
tially conciliatory  work  in  which  Paul,  in  order  to  reconcile 
Gentile  with  Jewish  Christianity,  makes  the  utmost  possible 
concession  to  the  latter  (Jahrb.  f.  protest.  TheoL,  1879)  ;  and 
Pfleiderer  (ibid.)  has  not  only  returned  to  the  predominantly 
Gentile-Christian  character  of  the  Church,  but  even  makes 
the  Apostle,  in  order  to  persuade  the  Jewish- Christian  min- 
ority of  the  truth  of  his  gospel  and  to  reconcile  them  with 
the  fact  of  victorious  Gentile  Christianity,  disclose  and  im- 
press on  the  unruly  and  hard-hearted  heathen  above  all,  the 
practical  consequences  of  this  gospel,  a  view  which  he  too 
finds  consistent  with  the  dogmatic  exposition  in  chap,  i.— viii. 
in  its  wider  sense.  But  the  more  the  controversy  actually 
present  in  the  Church  is  restricted  to  that  treated  in  chap, 
xiv.,  and  the  more  certainly  this  is  traced  back  in  xv.  8  f. 
to  the  opposition  between  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity, 
the  more  completely  does  the  theory  of  wider  differences 


304    PROPHYLACTIC   CONCEPTION   OF  THE  EPISTLE, 

between  the  two  parties,  which  our  epistle   is  alleged  to 
settle,  lack  all  historical  support. 

6.  The  very  conception  of  our  epistle  as  a  purely  doc- 
trinal work  included  to  some  extent  the  prophylactic  aim 
of  fortifying  its  readers  in  advance  against  future  attacks 
on  their  faith ;  a  view  to  which  xvi.  17-20  seems  to  give 
some  support.  In  this  case  it  would  have  been  much  more 
natural  to  regard  the  danger  from  Judaistic  agitators  threat- 
ening the  Gentile  Christian  Church  of  Rome,  as  well  as 
those  of  Corinth  and  Galatia,  as  the  actual  motive  of  the 
epistle.  This  view,  which  has  in  any  case  probability  in  its 
favour,  although  already  indicated  by  Gran,  was  first  strik- 
ingly set  forth  by  Weizsacker;  while  Grafe  attempted  to 
carry  it  out,  although  rive's  are  mentioned  in  iii.  8  just  as  in 
the  earlier  polemic  epistles,  who  calumniate  the  Apostle  by 
imputing  to  him  immoral  principles,  obviously  as  alleged 
consequences  of  his  doctrines.1  But  the  epistle  does  not 
afford  any  further  support  to  this  presupposition.  On  tlie 
contrary  all  direct  reference  to  the  question  raised  by  the 
Judaistic  opposition  as  to  whether  this  should  not  first  bo 
settled  by  the  adoption  of  the  law  and  of  circumcision,  is 
wanting  just  where  we  should  most  naturally  look  for  it, 
viz.  in  the  statement  of  the  new  way  of  salvation  (iii.  22-30), 
as  well  as  in  the  proof  of  its  Old  Testament  prefiguration 
and  its  final  aim  in  the  completion  of  salvation.  The  section 
chaps,  vi.-viii.  might  rather  be  understood  as  directed 
against  the  reproach  that  Paul  seduced  to  sin  by  his  doc- 

1  That  the  dialectic  questions  by  which  Paul  himself  seeks  to  carry 
forward  his  developments  (vi.  1,  15;  vii.  7 ;  xi.  1,  11)  contain  statements 
that  have  been  foisted  upon  him,  is  as  impossible  to  prove  as  that  others 
contain  objections  actually  made  against  him  (comp  iii.  31 ;  iv.  1 ;  ix.  14, 
19  ff. ;  z.  14  ff.;  z.  18  ff.),  since  the  purely  rhetorical  character  of  counties 
questions  of  the  kind,  is  obvious  (ii.  3  f.,  21  ff. ;  iii.  3,  5  ff.,  27  ;  iv.  3,  9  f. ; 
vi.  2  f.,  16  vii.  1 ;  viii.  81  ff. ;  ix.  80,  83;  xi.  2,  4,  7, 15).  This  makes  all 
certain  proof  of  the  above  assumption  impossible ;  especially  since  the 
now  completely  isolated  reference  to  Judaists  in  iii.  8  appears  in  a  section 
that  presents  an  entirely  different  front  (No.  4). 


THE   CHUECH  AT  EOMB.  305 

trine  of  grace  and  outraged  the  Divine  institution  of  the 
law;  but  he  sets  out  so  ingenuously,  even  paradoxically, 
with  a  statement  apparently  most  offensive  (v.  20  f.)  res- 
pecting the  law,  and  proceeds  to  develop  his  argument  in  so 
doctrinal  a  way,  in  accordance  with  a  purely  ideal  scheme, 
going  so  far  beyond  his  alleged  point  of  attack  in  chap,  viii., 
that  the  section  cannot  certainly  be  explained  from  this 
point  of  view.  Moreover  the  assertion  that  section  chaps, 
ix.-xi.  contains  a  vindication  of  his  Gentile  mission  against 
the  objections  and  attacks  of  Judaists  by  no  means  holds 
good.2  And  if  this  view  likewise  prove  untenable,  the 
attempt  to  find  the  historical  occasion  of  the  doctrinal  dis- 
cussions of  this  epistle  in  the  relations  and  needs  of  the 
Roman  Church  must  be  given  up.  But  it  is  quite  an  error 
to  suppose  that  all  historical  interpretation  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  is  therefore  impossible. 

7.  It  was  T.  H.  Schott,  who  first  attempted  to  explain  the 
epistle  by  the  frame  of  mind  and  intentions  of  the  Apostle 
at  the  time  of  its  composition  ;  but,  while  laying  exclusive 
emphasis  on  Paul's  desire  to  get  a  firm  support  in  the  Roman 
Church  for  the  new  phase  of  his  missionary  activity,  and 
therefore  to  instruct  it  as  to  the  importance  and  authority  of 
the  step  he  intended  to  take  as  well  as  respecting  the  nature 
and  principles  of  his  work,  he  committed  the  same  mistake 
as  Baur  by  making  chap,  ix.-xi.  the  proper  centre  of  the 
epistle.1  It  is  necessary  rather  to  set  out  with  the  fact  that 

8  The  partial  rejection  of  Israel  here  treated  of  appears  in  nowise 
brought  about  by  his  Gentile  mission,  but  by  the  free  Divine  election 
and  hardening  (chap,  ix.)  and  by  the  inexcusable  obstinacy  of  Israel 
(chap.  x.).  Where  Paul  comes  to  speak  in  reality  of  the  importance  of 
his  Gentile  mission  in  bringing  about  the  final  aim  of  the  Divine 
decree  of  salvation,  his  argument  reaches  its  practical  point  in  the 
repudiation  of  all  self-exaltation  of  Gentile  Christianity  (xi.  17  24). 
Thus  the  view  that  ix.  1-6  and  x.  1  f.  were  meant  for  a  defence  against 
the  reproach  of  a  want  of  love  for  his  countrymen,  loses  all  support. 

1  Since  moreover  he  looked  upon  the  readers  of  the  epistle  as  Gen- 
tile Ciuibtiaus,  he  was  constrained,  in  order  to  make  the  discussion  of 


306  OBJECT   OF   THE   EPISTLE. 

the  doctrinal  discussions  of  the  epistle,  in  proportion  aa 
they  avoid  all  explanation  founded  on  polemic  or  apologetio 
aims,  can  only  be  explained  by  the  characteristic  necessity 
of  Paul's  nature  (comp.  §  16,  5)  to  bring  as  it  were  the 
spiritual  product  of  the  last  years  to  his  own  consciousness, 
and  to  fix  it  in  a  written  form.  These  years  of  strife  with 
Judaism  had  not  only  obliged  him  to  develop  his  free  gospel 
of  salvation  logically  on  all  sides,  making  himself  acquainted 
with  its  ultimate  principles  and  results  as  well  as  its  interior 
connection,  but  also  to  recognise  the  true  point  of  opposition 
directed  against  him  and  to  bring  it  within  his  own  range 
of  thought.2  It  thus  became  necessary  for  him  to  draw  up 
a  statement  of  his  new  doctrine  of  salvation,  establishing  it 
by  argument  on  all  sides,  and  showing  its  consistency  with 
the  Divine  revelation  of  the  Old  Testament  as  well  as  with 
the  historical  claims  of  Israel  to  salvation.  Its  occasional 
polemic  or  apologetic  form  naturally  resulted  from  the  fact 

his  step  intelligible  to  them,  to  proceed  to  the  monstrous  assertion  that 
the  Oriental  mission  of  the  Apostle  was  still  esseutially  a  Jewish  mission, 
and  that  he  wished  to  begin  his  proper  Gentile  mission  in  the  far  West. 
Mangold  and  Sabatier,  Biggonbnoh  and  Boyschlag  were  apparently  able 
to  make  the  point  of  view  indicated  by  him  consist  with  their  own  as- 
sumptions ;  but  the  whole  conception  of  the  support  that  Paul  desired 
to  gain  for  his  Spanish  mission  in  Rome,  is  incomprehensible  and  ia 
arbitrarily  thrust  into  xv.  24.  The  way  in  winch  Hofmann  attempts 
to  explain  the  epistle  by  purely  personal  references  to  the  Church  is 
deficient  in  all  historical  sense,  while  his  exegesis  has  only  succeeded 
in  fundamentally  destroying  and  confusing  the  whole  obain  of  thought 
so  transparent  in  the  epistle. 

3  If  we  compare  the  Roman  with  the  Thessul  >nian  Epistles  that  re- 
present the  strongest  tension  between  the  Apostle  and  Judaism,  we 
must  be  doubly  sensible  of  the  pacific  turn  which  Hilg<  nfeld,  Holsten 
and  especially  Pfleiderer  have  recognised  in  the  former,  more  particu- 
larly in  the  change  of  his  Apocalyptic  perspective  (comp.  §  17,  7,  note 
8).  His  high  minded  patriotism  must  al  eady  have  driven  him  to  seek 
to  unite  the  historical  importance  of  Israel  in  the  plan  of  salvation 
with  his  Gentile-Apostolic  universalisin  ;  and  his  recognition  of  the  Old 
Testament  revelation  inevitably  required  him  to  prove  his  new  gospel  to 
be  in  all  respects  based  on  the  history  and  teaching  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 


THE   CHUECH  AT  BOMB.  307 

that  many  of  his  views  had  been  reached  in  the  struggle  with 
Jewish  Christianity  and  unbelieving  Judaism.  The  reason 
why  he  did  not  put  this  statement  into  a  book  but  into  a 
letter  is  to  be  found  in  the  literary  method  with  which  cir- 
cumstances had  made  him  familiar.  The  fact  that  he  ad- 
dressed the  epistle  to  the  Church  at  Rome  was,  however, 
anything  but  accidental.  Apart  from  the  external  occasion 
that  impelled  him  just  then  to  announce  his  visit  to  this 
Church,  he  had  long  recognised  the  importance  which  the 
Church  of  the  world's  metropolis  mtist  have  in  the  future  as 
the  centre  of  the  great  Gentile  Church,  just  as  Jerusalem 
was  the  centre  of  Jewish  Christianity.  On  the  eve  of  a 
journey  to  Jerusalem  for  the  purpose  of  cementing  a  firm 
bond  between  the  Gentile  Churches  and  the  Jewish- Christian 
mother-Church  by  the  great  love-work  of  a  collection,  he 
wrote  this  Epistle  to  the  Gentile  Church  of  Rome,  setting 
forth  the  new  and  yet  old  way  of  salvation  which  finally 
leads  Israel  in  conjunction  with  the  nations  to  the  divinely 
appointed  goal,  and  must  put  an  end  for  ever  to  all  strife 
between  Gentile  and  Jewish  Christianity.  Not  because  this 
Church  was  threatened  by  Judaistic  errors  or  disturbed  in 
its  knowledge  of  salvation,  but  because  he  regarded  it  as  a 
matter  of  great  importance  that  it  should  be  the  bearer  and 
representative  of  his  conception  of  Christianity,  which  first 
raised  it  to  the  full  rank  of  a  universal  religion ;  for  he 
probably  knew  best  how  incapable  his  own  disciples  or  even 
their  disciples  were  of  appropriating  it  with  full  and  com- 
prehensive understanding.  And  here  we  are  led  to  conjec- 
ture that  the  fears  which  he  then  entertained  (xv.  31)  sug- 
gested to  his  mind  the  idea  that  this  epistle  might  possibly 
be  his  testament  to  the  Church  and  in  it  to  Christendom 
generally.3 

*  It  is  altogether  vain  to  object  that  this  conception  of  the  epistle 
makes  it  unique  among  the  epistles  of  the  Apostle,  for  it  is  and  remains 
such  under  every  aspect.  The  fact  that  the  discussion  does  not  here 


308  EPISTLE   TO  THE  ROMANS. 

§  23.    THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS. 

1.  The  inscription  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  appears 
much  extended,  owing  to  the  fact  that  Paul  not  only  tells 
who  he  is  and  whom  he  addresses,  but  states  that  he  is 
entitled  by  his  own  personal  character  as  well  as  theirs,  to 
turn  to  those  with  whom  he  has  hitherto  had  no  personal 
relations  (i.  1-7).  Inasmuch  as  he  is  the  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles,  he  turns  to  the  Christians  at  Rome,  because  they 
too  as  the  called  of  Jesus  Christ,  belong  to  the  Gentiles ; 
and  his  Divine  calling  directs  him  to  them.  But  whilst  ho 
defines  this  calling  as  having  given  him  a  Divine  message  to 
announce  which  had  been  already  revealed  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, inasmuch  as  his  gospel  treats  of  Jesus  Christ,  our 
exalted  Lord,  as  the  Son  of  God,  whose  descent  from  the 
seed  of  David  as  well  as  His  exaltation  to  Divine  glory  was 
promised  by  the  prophets,  he  already  gives  expression  to  the 
fundamental  idea  of  his  whole  epistle  according  to  which 
he  designs  to  set  forth  the  salvation  promised  to  Israel  as  a 
universal  one.1  He  begins  with  the  usual  thanksgiving  for 
the  faith  of  his  readers  and  with  the  expression  of  a  long- 
cherished  wish  he  had  hitherto  been  prevented  carrying  out 
(i.  8-13),  viz.  to  come  into  personal  relations  with  them 
profitable  to  both.  He  then  proceeds  to  account  for  his 
readiness  to  make  known  the  gospel  to  them  also  in  writing 
without  being  ashamed  of  it  notwithstanding  their  culture, 

pass  freely  from  one  point  to  another,  in  keeping  with  the  style  of  the 
epistle,  but  that  the  separate  leading  points  of  view,  visibly  premeditated, 
are  taken  up  in  orderly  sequence,  cannot  be  got  rid  of  by  a  polemic,  con- 
ciliatory or  apologetic  view  of  the  epistle.  Nor  does  this  by  any  means 
prevent  the  chain  of  thought  being  interrupted  here  and  there  by  a  lively 
appeal  on  the  writer's  part  to  his  readers,  as  well  as  by  the  necessary 
application. 

1  Little  as  he  justifies  his  calling  to  be  an  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  or 
defends  it  against  attacks,  since  he  prefers  to  take  it  for  granted  and 
justify  his  writing  on  the  basis  of  it,  just  as  little  does  the  description  of 
his  message  as  that  promised  by  the  prophets,  contain  any  reference  to 
the  questions  ui  dispute  between  him  and  the  Jewish  Christians. 


ANALYSIS   OP   THE   EPISTLE.  $09 

by  his  feeling  of  obligation  towards  all  Gentiles  (i.  14  f.). 
But  while  making  the  nature  of  the  gospel  his  foundation 
for  this  boldness,  he  is  led  to  that  utterance  respecting  its 
substance  which  has  justly  been  regarded  as  the  proper 
theme  of  the  epistle.  If  it  is  a  power  of  God  unto  salvation 
to  every  one  that  believes,  to  the  highly  cultured  Greek  as 
well  as  the  Jew,  it  has  no  need  to  be  ashamed  before 
human  culture  and  wisdom,  which,  however  great  they 
may  be,  can  never  effect  that  result.  The  gospel  has  this 
power  because  it  reveals  a  righteousness  of  God  for  believers, 
to  whom  the  old  Scriptures  had  already  promised  life  and 
deliverance  from  destruction  (i.  16  f.).3 

2.  In  a  graphic  way  the  first  division  sets  forth  as  a 
foundation  the  fact  that  Paul  need  not  be  ashamed  of  the 
gospel,  if  by  revealing  a  Divine  righteousness  it  is  a  power 
of  God  unto  salvation,  since  apart  from  it  there  is  only  a 
revelation  of  Divine  wrath.  Hence  he  offers  a  thing  that  is 
absolutely  new  and  indispensable  (i.  18).  And  this  is  first 
shown  to  the  Gentiles,  who,  made  inexcusable  by  the  Divine 
revelation  of  nature,  have  turned  aside  from  the  God  whom 
they  might  have  known  (i.  19  ff.)  and  by  reason  of  a  Divine 
judgment  of  wrath  have  fallen  into  the  foolishness  of  idol- 
atry (i.  22  f.),  thence  into  unnatural  lusts  (i.  24-27),  sinking 
finally  into  complete  moral  apathy  (i.  28-32) -1  But  even 

2  Hence  our  epistle  is  not  occupied  with  a  system  of  Christian  doc- 
trine but  exclusively  with  the  exposition  of  the  way  of  salvation  re- 
vealed in  the  gospel ;  and  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  epistle  is  again 
condensed  into  the  statement  that  this  way  of  salvation  is  already  de- 
scribed in  the  Old  Testament  and  that  it  was  first  designed  for  Israel, 
bat  is  now  disclosed  to  every  believing  Gentile.  It  is  not  the  IK  irlffrewt 
in  opposition  to  the  II-  tpyuv  that  is  treated  of,  nor  a  justification  of  the 
"EXXijw  in  opposition  to  the  'lovSafy,  but  the  salvation  foretold  in  the 
Scriptures  and  therefore  first  designed  for  the  Jews,  which,  because 
dependent  solely  on  faith,  is  declared  to  be  accessible  and  indispensable 
to  all,  even  the  most  cultivated. 

1  It  is  not  therefore  the  sinfulness  of  heathenism  that  is  treated  of, 
but  its  fall  under  the  wrath  of  God,  which  make?  a  means  of  deliverance 
indispensable.  The  ami  of  the  epistle,  however  regarded,  which  arose 


310  EPISTLE   TO   THE   KOMAN8. 

those  who  are  so  ready  to  judge  others,  thus  showing  them- 
selves to  be  inexcusable  if  they  do  the  same  things,  fall 
under  Divine  judgment  that  looks  not  to  prerogative  but 
to  deeds,  and  in  the  day  of  wrath  strikes  the  Jew  first 
and  then  the  Greek  (ii.  1-10).  On  the  other  hand  the 
possession  of  a  law  forms  no  protection  to  the  Jews,  espe- 
cially as  the  heathen  have  properly  speaking  one  also,  by 
transgressing  which  they  dishonour  God  (ii.  11-24).  Nor 
can  circumcision  protect  them,  since  it  is  worthless  unless 
followed  by  circumcision  of  the  heart  (ii.  25-29).  It  has 
indeed  a  permanent  value  that  cannot  be  lost,  because  of 
the  faithfulness  of  God ;  but  the  Jew  must  not  therefore 
hope  to  escape  judgment,  if  by  his  unbelief  he  only  contri- 
butes to  the  glorious  confirmation  of  God's  truth  (iii.  1-8)  .8 
But  if,  as  a  reason  for  all  having  fallen  under  wrath,  it 
has  hitherto  been  taken  for  granted  that  Jews  and  Greeks 
are  alike  sinners  and  devoid  of  righteousness,  this  is  now 
expressly  proved  from  Scripture  (iii.  9-18),  the  premiss  being 

oat  of  tbc  need  of  the  Roman  Church,  makes  no  such  proof  necessary ; 
it  can  only  be  explained  on  the  supposition  that  the  discussion  is  funda- 
mentally designed  to  set  fortli  the  need  of  a  new  way  of  salvation  as 
common  to  all  humanity. 

2  This  very  section,  couched  in  a  vein  of  the  liveliest  polemic,  avoids 
all  reference  to  questions  of  dispute  within  Christianity,  since  the  party 
that  demanded  law  and  circumcision,  likewise  desired  the  fulfilment  of 
the  law,  whilst  only  the  unbelieving  Jew,  as  a  Jew  (possessing  the  law 
and  circumcision)  imagined  he  was  certain  of  salvation,  to  whom  alone 
therefore  Paul  could  refer  in  his  polemic.  Even  the  question  as  to 
whether  he  did  not  thus  abolish  every  privilege  of  Judaism  (iii.  1),  that 
had  certainly  been  put  before  him  frequently  in  his  struggles  with 
Judaism,  does  not  here  come  up  in  order  to  be  settled  apologetically, 
but  solely  in  order  to  show  by  the  first  privilege  he  names,  how  little 
such  can  avail  to  exempt  the  Jew  from  punishment.  The  very  way  in 
which  he  exemplifies  this  in  his  own  person,  whom  none  would  regard 
as  undeserving  of  punishment,  if  by  his  lie  he  only  promoted  the  glory  of 
God's  truth  (iii.  7),  evidently  refers  to  the  judgment  passed  on  him  by 
unbelieving  Judaism  ;  and  only  when  speaking  of  the  immoral  conclu- 
sion to  which  the  contrary  would  lead,  does  he  mention  that  this  accus- 
ation has  on  several  occasions  been  made  against  him  by  his  adversaries, 
solely  to  deny  it  with  indignation  (iii.  8). 


ANALYSIS   OF   THE   EPISTLE.  311 

first  laid  down  that  the  Scripture  declaration  respecting 
universal  human  sinfulness  applies  also  to  the  Jews,  since 
the  true  function  of  the  law  is  to  lead  man  from  his  own 
insufficiency  to  the  attainment  of  righteousness  (iii.  19  f.). 

3.  The  second  division  again  takes  up  the  theme  enun- 
ciated in  i.  16  f.,  setting  forth  in  detail  how,  without  the 
mediation  of  a  law,  a  righteousness  of  God  already  declared 
in  the  Old  Testament  had  actually  been  manifested  to  all 
believers  without  distinction,  inasmuch  as  sinners  who  are 
entirely  destitute  of  righteousness  before  God  are  by  Him 
through  grace  declared  righteous.  To  wit,  God  has  in  the 
blood  of  Christ  set  forth  a  means  of  propitiation  that  receives 
its  atoning  power  solely  by  faith,  that  He  might  no  longer 
seem  to  pass  sin  over  with  indifference,  but  might  at  the 
same  time  find  it  possible,  on  the  ground  of  faith  in  Jesus,  to 
declare  the  sinner  righteous  (iii.  21-26).  This  new  decree 
of  justification  first  satisfies  fully  the  religions  want,  inas- 
much as  it  excludes  all  boasting,  and,  as  alone  consistent 
with  the  unity  of  God  is  alike  accessible  to  circumcised 
and  uncircumcised  (iii.  27-30).  Nevertheless  an  old  ordi- 
nance of  God  is  not  by  this  means  made  void,  but  is  rather 
established  (Hi.  31), l  as  is  already  proved  by  the  fact  that 
such  method  of  justification  is  typically  established  in  the 
history  of  Abraham.  Paul  begins  by  showing  how  the  im- 

1  The  premisses  from  which  Paul  proves  that  justification  by  faith 
alone  satisfies  the  need  of  salvation  for  humanity  set  forth  in  the  first 
division,  would  have  been  very  unfairly  obtained  if  he  had  considered 
himself  at  strife  with  the  Jewish  Christians,  for  they  neither  regarded  it 
as  necessary  to  exclude  all  boasting,  nor  looked  on  God  as  the  God  of 
Jew  and  Gentile  alike  in  the  sense  here  assumed.  Moreover  they  aimed 
at  an  analogous  method  of  justification  for  Gentiles  as  well  as  for  Jews 
in  the  way  demanded  by  them.  Moreover  iii.  31  cannot  refer  to  the 
reproach  that  he  abolished  the  law,  since  from  the  connection  with  chap, 
iv.  there  can  be  no  question  of  the  law  here ;  and  because  the  fact  of 
vbpw  having  no  article  absolutely  excludes  a  reference  to  the  Torah  aa 
the  source  of  the  history  of  Divine  revelation.  Bather  is  it  the  exclusive 
aim,  as  already  indicated  in  iii.  21,  to  prove  that  the  new  method  of 
salvation  ia  the  same  that  was  atlr Ftod  by  tbe  Old  Testament. 


312  EPISTLE   TO   THE   ROMANS. 

potation  of  faith  as  righteousness,  that  takes  place  in  the 
justi6cation  of  Abraham,  is  a  pure  act  of  grace,  and  there- 
fore precludes  all  hnman  merit  and  consequently  all  boasting 
(iv.  1-8),  and  goes  on  to  explain  how,  by  the  history  of 
Abraham,  its  universal  character  is  attested,  viz.  that  it  is 
designed  for  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews.  But  since  in  chap.  ii. 
the  law  and  circumcision  had  already  been  pointed  out  as 
characteristics  of  the  latter,  it  is  now  first  shown  how  the  very 
time  when  Abraham  received  this  justification  constitutes  an 
intimation  that  participation  in  it  is  limited  to  his  spiritual 
children  that  resemble  him  in  faith  whether  circumcised  or 
not  (iv.  9-12),  and  again  how  Abraham's  richest  inheritance, 
the  promise  of  salvation,  cannot  be  mediated  by  the  law  but 
only  through  the  righteousness  of  faith,  and  therefore  belongs 
to  the  whole  seed  of  Abraham,  even  to  those  whose  father 
he  is  in  a  spiritual  sense  (iv.  13-17).  For  the  same  im- 
mutable faith  in  the  Divine  promise  that  procured  justifica- 
tion for  Abraham,  according  to  the  typical  representation  of 
the  Scripture,  will  be  imputed  to  them  also  for  righteous- 
ness (iv.  18-25).  Hence  the  Apostle  can  only  conclude  that 
justification  by  faith  implies  the  full  certainty  of  complete 
salvation,  because  the  love  of  God  experienced  in  it  is  a 
guarantee  for  the  highest  and  last  experience  of  this  love  in 
the  final  deliverance  from  Divine  wrath  (v.  1-11)  ;9  while 
from  the  historical  parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ  he 
proves  that  as  certainly  as  sin  and  death  have  come  on  all 

*  The  Apostle  here  cornea  to  the  point  on  which  the  actual  controversy 
between  him  and  the  Judaists  turned,  for  the  latter  also  in  a  certain  sense 
accepted  blessedness  through  Christ  that  was  necessarily  associated  with 
their  faith  in  the  Messiah,  but  made  participation  in  the  fulness  of  salva- 
tion dependent  on  going  over  to  Judaism  by  the  adoption  of  circumcision 
and  the  law.  The  fact  that  the  reasoning,  which  is  purely  thetical,  does 
not  betray  the  slightest  reference  to  this  controversy,  proves  unanswerably 
that  the  Roman  Epistle  combats  no  Jewish-Christian  opposition,  but 
that  the  fundamental  idea  of  Paul's  Gospel  (i.  16  f.)  is  attested  in  the 
second  part  by  the  full  satisfying  of  the  need  of  salvation  set  forth  in  the 
first. 


ANALYSIS  OP  THE  EPISTLE.  313 

humanity  with  the  former,  so  certainly  can  all  find  righteous- 
ness and  life  in  the  latter  (v.  12-19). 

4.  From  the  position  that  the  law  has  only  served  to 
promote  the  sinf  nl  development  begun  with  Adam,  in  order 
to  give  full  scope  to  the  efficacy  of  grace  (v.  20  f.),  the 
Apostle  proceeds  in  the  third  part  to  prove  that  grace  alone 
effects  true  righteousness ;  a  power  which  the  law  neither  has 
nor  was  intended  to  have.  He  appeals  to  the  experience  of 
every  Christian,  according  to  which  he  is  made  partaker  of 
the  life  of  Christ  through  baptism  wherein  he  died  to  sin 
and  rose  to  a  new  life  in  which  he  serves  God  alone  (vi. 
l-ll).  But  he  is  not  therefore  transferred  to  a  state  of 
liberty  in  which,  trusting  to  grace,  he  may  calmly  continue 
in  sin  (vi.  12-17)),  but  has  only  exchanged  false  for  true 
freedom,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  the  bondage  of  sin  for 
the  service  of  righteousness,  which  latter  proves  itself  to  be 
true  by  leading  to  life,  whereas  the  former  leads  to  death  (vi. 
18-23). l  Man,  however,  attains  to  this  realization  of  right- 
eousness not  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  is  no  longer  under 
the  law  but  because  of  it.  The  Apostle  points  out  that  the 
same  death  by  which  he  died  to  sin  in  communion  with 
Christ  has  likewise  loosed  the  bond  of  obligation  that 
bound  his  old  natural  life  to  the  law  (vii.  1-6).  This  was 
necessary,  because  the  law,  far  from  leading  to  life,  only 
roused  to  opposition  the  sin  that  slumbered  in  man,  and 
brought  him  to  death,  so  that  sin,  by  the  way  in  which  it 

1  That  the  tendency  of  the  section  is  not  to  defend  himself  against  the 
Judaistic  reproach  of  teaching  license  to  sin  in  a  free  state  of  grace 
(vi.  15),  and  even  requiring  it  in  order  that  grace  might  be  the  more 
glorified  (vi.  1)  appears  from  the  fact  that  the  practical  point  of  his  theo- 
retical reasoning  lies  rather  in  the  admonition  to  observe  fundamental 
freedom  from  sin  in  the  life  (vi.  12  a.)  and  in  reminding  his  readers  that 
by  surrender  to  his  (free)  gospel  they  decided  for  the  principle  of  the 
inra-Koi'i  (vi.  16  f.),  that  leads  to  the  service  of  righteousness  and  to  true 
subjection  to  God.  This  by  no  means  forbids  the  assumption  that  the 
Apostle  takes  up  reproaches  that  he  encountered  in  the  strife  with  the 
Judaists,  in  order  that  hi  opposing  them  he  might  logically  develop  the 
results  of  his  doctrine  of  grace. 


814  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS. 

turned  this  good  of  humanity  into  an  evil,  was  now  first 
revealed  in  all  its  sinfulness  and  corruption  (vii.  7-13). 
This  was  not  owing  to  the  spiritual  law  of  God,  but  to  the 
disposition  of  the  natural  man  who  could  readily  find  theo- 
retical pleasure  therein,  but  through  the  power  of  sin  dwell- 
ing in  the  flesh  was  always  entangled  again  in  bondage  to 
sin,  as  the  Apostle  shows  by  an  affecting  description  of  his 
own  experiences  under  the  law  (vii.  14-25).  It  is  no  polemic 
or  apologetic  tendency,  but  the  fundamental  thought  of  the 
epistle  that  made  it  necessary  to  prove  at  such  length  how 
the  law  was  unable  to  effect  deliverance  from  sin  or  the 
fulfilment  of  the  Divine  will,  for  which,  however,  it  was  not 
to  blame,  since  such  was  not  its  appointed  task.  This  fully 
appears  when  the  Apostle  goes  on  to  show  with  fundamental 
clearness  and  precision  how  the  spirit  imparted  in  living 
communion  with  Christ,  on  the  ground  of  the  condemnation 
of  sin  in  the  sinless  life  of  Christ,  effects  in  the  Christian 
that  which  the  law  could  not  do  (viii.  1—4).  Yet  the  proper 
argument  on  which  everything  turned  if  his  free  gospel 
were  to  be  vindicated,  is  not  given  at  all ;  on  the  contrary, 
he  goes  on  at  once  to  show  in  a  purely  practical  and  ad. 
monitory  vein,  how  this  only  happens  in  the  case  of  those 
who  no  longer  walk  after  the  flesh  but  after  the  spirit  (viii. 
5-13),  and  how  the  same  spirit  that  moves  us,  formerly 
characterized  as  the  spirit  of  life  (viii.  2;  ix.  6,  101,  13), 
guarantees  fulness  of  salvation  even  amid  all  the  sufferings 
of  the  present  (viii.  14-27).  In  treating  of  the  new  spiritual 
life  of  the  Christian  he  therefore  returns  at  last  to  the  full 
salvation  offered  in  the  gospel,  in  accordance  with  the  funda- 
mental theme  of  the  epistle  (i.  16  f.)  ;  hence  this  part  refers 
back  to  the  second,  ending,  though  commonly  overlooked, 
with  a  statement  that  this  salvation  is  founded  on  the  Divine 
election,  and  with  the  song  of  triumph  that  gives  striking 
expression  to  the  indestructible  certainty  of  such  salvation 
(viii.  28-39). 


ANALYSIS   OP  THE   EPISTLE.  315 

5.  In  speaking  of  Divine  election,  the  Apostle  touches 
npon  the  point  that  leads  him  to  the  fourth  division  of  his 
doctrinal  discussion.  For  this  Divine  election  according  to 
i.  16  is  in  the  first  place  an  election  of  Israel,  and  is  in 
apparently  irreconcileable  opposition  to  the  fact  that  Israel 
as  a  nation  had  on  the  contrary  been  hardened,  and  forfeited 
salvation.  Here  was  the  point  in  respect  of  which  he 
himself  felt  it  imperatively  necessary  to  arrive  at  an  under- 
standing as  to  the  Old  Testament  promise  and  the  historical 
prerogative  of  salvation  belonging  to  his  own  nation ;  nor  was 
it  a  present  or  apprehended  questioning  of  his  love  towards 
his  people  that  led  him  to  give  such  lively  expression  to  all 
his  sorrow  for  what  had  occurred,  and  his  full  recognition 
of  their  privileges,  but  his  desire  that  he  himself  and  his 
readers  should  realise  the  full  magnitude  of  the  problem  in 
question  (ix.  1-5).  He  endeavours  to  show  how  the  Old 
Testament  primitive  histoiy  was  designed  to  make  the  sons 
of  Abraham  and  Isaac  themselves  understand  the  Divine 
promise  in  the  sense  that  God  would  choose  according  to  His 
own  judgment,  without  regard  to  any  merit  of  works,  those 
bodily  descendants  of  the  patriarchs  to  whom  He  would  ful- 
fil His  promise  (ix.  6-13).  There  is  no  unrighteousness  in 
this,  since  God  already  proclaimed  the  freeness  of  His  mercy 
as  well  as  of  His  hardening  to  Moses  and  to  Pharaoh  respec- 
tively (ix.  14-18),  and  since  the  creature  can  make  no  claim 
whatever  on  the  Creator  (ix.  19— 21).1  But  now,  instead  of 
passing  immediate  sentence  on  the  Jews  who  had  already 
fallen  under  His  wrath,  God  has  endured  with  much  long- 

1  It  is  a  complete  error  to  regard  these  details  as  a  polemic  against  the 
carnal  claims  of  the  Jews,  in  which,  according  to  the  current  view,  Paul 
is  said  to  have  been  misled  into  a  one-sided  development  of  his  doctrine 
of  election.  No  Jew  has  ever  found  unrighteousness  in  the  election  of 
Isaac  before  Ishmael,  or  of  Jacob  before  Esau,  or  regarded  the  hardening 
of  Pharaoh  as  an  act  of  God's  power  and  therefore  excusable.  But 
even  the  Judaists  did  not  maintain  that  the  Jews  as  such  were  chosen 
on  account  of  their  descent  and  legal  works,  but  only  that  the  latter 
were  indispensable  to  salvation. 


316  EPISTLE   TO  THE   ROMANS. 

suffering  those  who  were  ripe  for  destruction,  in  order  to 
glorify  Himself  meanwhile  in  the  vessels  of  His  mercy, 
whom  He  calls  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  just  as  was  fore- 
seen in  the  prophecy  according  to  which  God  would  make 
those  to  be  His  people  who  were  not  His  people,  and  on  the 
other  hand  would  save  only  a  remnant  of  Israel  (ix.  22-29). 
The  reason  why  the  great  bulk  of  Israel  did  not  attain 
salvation  was  because  they  sought  it  by  their  own  righteous- 
ness (ix.  30-x.  3).  But  now  the  law  has  come  to  an  end 
with  Christ,  through  whom  righteousness  and  salvation  are 
offered  in  the  gospel  only  to  believers  (x.  4-14) ;  and  it  is 
due  to  their  utterly  inexcusable  disobedience,  as  also  foreseen 
in  Scripture,  that  they  have  not  believed  (x.  15-21).9  The 
nation  is  not  indeed  rejected  as  such,  since  God,  by  the 
election  of  grace,  has  reserved  to  Himself  a  remnant  who 
obtained  salvation;  but  the  rest  were  hardened  (xi.  1-10). 
Paul  now  first  sets  forth  how,  according  to  the  counsel  of 
God,  this  hardening  must  necessarily  serve  to  turn  salvation 
to  the  Gentiles,  but  that  the  final  aim  of  the  Gentile  mission 
consists  in  the  restoration  of  Israel,  which,  as  the  grafting 
of  the  natural  branches  into  the  noble  tree  of  the  theocracy, 
is  always  easier  than  to  graft  cuttings  of  the  wild  olive,  a 
thing  that  has  nevertheless  been  done  successfully  (xi.  11-24) . 
The  Apostle  makes  the  prophetic  announcement  that  this 
object  will  be  attained  at  a  future  time,  in  full  accordance 

*  It  is  a  misinterpretation  to  make  chap.  z.  refer  to  the  Gentile  mission, 
and  is  quite  at  variance  with  the  context.  For  z.  14  ff.  only  sets  fortb 
that  there  can  be  no  appeal  to  the  name  of  Jesus,  such  as  alone  leads  tu 
salvation,  without  faith  in  the  message  of  those  sent  by  God,  whom, 
however,  the  Jews  did  not  receive ;  and  in  z.  18  ff.  the  inexcusableness 
of  their  unbelief  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  they  had  certainly  heard  the 
message  that  had  gone  forth  into  all  the  world,  and  that  they  must  have 
sufficiently  understood  what  even  the  Gentiles  had  understood.  And 
since  there  is  not  a  word  in  iz.  24  f.  to  indicate  that  the  call  of  the  Gen- 
tiles there  spoken  of  was  mediated  by  a  Gentile  mission,  much  less  by 
that  of  Paul,  the  conception  of  a  justification  of  this  mission  loses  all 
•upport. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  EPISTLE.  317 

with  prophecy,  though  not  until  after  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentile  world ;  and  when  he  then  breaks  out  into  praise  of 
the  Divine  wisdom,  that  has  by  inscrutable  means  succeeded 
in  reaching  the  goal  of  Israel's  election  in  such  a  way  as 
to  make  salvation  available  for  all  even  the  Gentiles  (xi. 
25-36),  it  is  clear  that  the  aim  of  this  section  is  not  the 
justification  of  his  Gentile  mission,  but  the  solution  of  the 
darkest  problem  of  the  history  of  Divine  salvation,  with 
which  he  himself  was  so  deeply  occupied. 

6.  The  admonitory  part  of  the  epistle  begins  with  a 
profound  exhortation  to  present  themselves  a  sacrifice  well- 
pleasing  to  God  (xii.  1  f.),  and  then  goes  on  to  explain  how 
Christian  modesty  should  prove  itself  by  the  application  of 
the  diverse  gifts  of  each  to  the  service  of  all  (xii.  3-8), 
following  this  up  by  pointing  out,  though  in  a  free  and  even 
heterogeneous  mixture  of  thought,  the  various  evidences 
of  brotherly  love  (xii.  9-16),  coming  finally  to  the  proper 
treatment  of  enemies  (xii.  17-21).  If  this  first  section  deals 
mainly  with  the  life  of  the  community,  chap.  xiii.  takes  up 
the  shaping  of  individual  life.  The  relation  of  the  indivi- 
dual to  the  ruling  powers  is  here  discussed  (xiii.  1-6),  the 
examination  being  extended  to  all  other  forms  of  duty  (xiii. 
7-10),  while,  in  conclusion,  purification  and  preservation  of 
personal  life  are  required  (xiii.  11-14). 

Since  we  have  shown  the  current  view,  that  the  exhortation  to  be  sub- 
ject  to  rulers  refers  to  the  special  needs  of  the  (alleged  Jewish-Christian) 
Roman  Church,  to  be  untenable  (§  22,  3),  this  section,  treating  of  the 
regulation  of  the  virtuous  Christian  life  from  an  entirely  theoretical  point 
of  view  and  without  any  reference  to  special  exigencies  of  the  Church, 
holds  a  unique  place  in  Paul's  epistles,  like  the  discussions  of  the  doc- 
trinal division  that  advance  almost  systematically.  The  fact  is  the  more 
significant  that  it  presents  throughout  the  most  striking  points  of  con- 
tact with  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter ;  and  to  such  extent  that  the  Pauline 
exhortations  appear  throughout  as  full  and  free  developments  of  the  short 
and  knotty  gnomes  of  Peter  bringing  his  own  peculiarities  into  promi- 
nence.1 If  we  add  that  the  peculiar  linking  and  adjustment  of  two 

1  The  very  exhortation  to  self-sacrifice  in  xii.  1  f.  that  appears  in  the 


318  EPISTLE   TO   THE   ROMANS. 

Scripture  citations  in  Bom.  ix.  83  are  not  only  similar  in  1  Pet.  ii.  6  f .,  bat 
in  the  latter  alone  are  required  by  the  connection,  the  conjecture  that 
Paul  was  acquainted  with  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  that  his  pithy 
sayings  are  frequently  in  his  mind  in  this  section,  is  almost  inevitable. 
To  suppose  that  this  view  touches  the  originality  of  the  Pauline  spirit 
and  Pauline  authorship  too  closely  is  pure  prejudice.  Comp.  Weiss,  d«r 
petrinitche  Lehrbegriff,  Berlin,  1855  (V.,  4),  and  Stud.  «.  Krit.,  1865,  4 
(against  Holler,  deuttche  Zeittchr.  fur  chrittt.  Wiitentchaft,  etc.,  1856, 
89,  46  f.). 

It  is  quite  otherwise  with  the  section  xiv.  1-xv.  13,  treat- 
ing of  the  case  in  which  regard  for  the  life  of  the  community 
comes  into  collision  with  individual  claims.  We  here  find 
ourselves  at  once  transported  into  the  concrete  circumstances 
of  the  Roman  Church.  There  were  in  it  persons  weak  in 
faith  who  scrupulously  avoided  the  use  of  flesh  and  wine  and 
strictly  observed  certain  fast  days;  there  were  also  strong 
persons  who  looked  down  with  contempt  on  such  scruples, 
while  the  weak  were  only  too  ready  to  throw  doubt  on  the  true 
conscientiousness  of  the  strong  in  their  Christian  walk.  Paul 
declares  the  whole  subjective  dispute  to  be  a  matter  of  indif- 
ference ;  it  is  only  necessary  that  each  one  should  in  his  own 
way,  with  conscientious  conviction,  serve  the  Lord  to  whom 
alone  he  is  responsible,  and  that  none  should  judge  or  despise 
another  (xiv.  5-12).  He  then  proceeds  to  argue,  exactly 
as  in  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  that  if  the  strong 

same  form  nowhere  else  in  Paul,  recalls  1  Pet.  ii.  5,  a  passage  closely 
interwoven  with  the  details  of  that  epistle  (oomp.  the  peculiar  expressions 
\oyix6i  and  cwx^fMTl^fffffcu).  The  section  xii.  3-8  looks  like  a  develop- 
ment of  1  Pet.  iv.  10  (comp.  the  peculiar  position  of  Siaxovia  beside 
rpo<t>irrila.),  xii.  9-16  like  a  variation  on  the  theme  1  Pet.  iii.  8  down  to 
the  peculiar  combination  of  the  exhortation  in  xii.  16,  properly  belong- 
ing to  the  first  section,  with  the  admouition  to  brotherly  love  (comp. 
also  xii.  9  f.  with  1  Pet.  i.  22,  ii.  17 ;  xii.  13  with  1  Pet.  iv.  9 ;  xii.  14,  18 
with  1  Pet.  iii.  9,  11) ;  while  the  closing  exhortation  of  the  chapter  (xii. 
20  f.)  touches  very  closely  on  a  favourite  idea  of  the  Petrine  Epistle  (ii. 
12,  15,  iii.  1  f.,  16  f.).  Still  more  closely  does  xiii.  1-6  follow  1  Pet.  ii. 
13  f.,  though  peculiar  in  form  throughout  (comp.  the  vveptxetr,  the  trcu- 
ros  ayaOoiroiuv  and  the  ticSlKTjffii  acucoroiwi'),  xiii.  7  f.  again  reading  like  a 
variation  of  1  Pet.  ii.  17  and  xiii.  13  f.  recalling  1  Pet.  iv.  3  in  a  striking 
way. 


ANALYSIS   OP   THE   EPISTLE.  319 

person  offend  the  weak  one  and  lead  him  to  do  that  which  is 
against  his  conscience,  Christian  love  requires  the  renun- 
ciation of  a  lawful  enjoyment  rather  than  to  destroy  the 
salvation  of  his  brother  (xiv.  13-23).  Herein  consists  true 
tolerance,  as  manifested  by  Christ  who  suffered  many  things 
for  the  sake  of  others ;  and  this  course  alone  promotes  that 
true  union  in  which  God  Himself  instructs  ns  in  the  Scrip- 
tures (xv.  1-6).  But  since  the  dispute  was  actually  called 
forth  by  the  opposition  of  the  Gentile- Christian  majority  to 
a  Jewish-Christian  minority  (§  22,  3),  Paul  returns  to  the 
arguments  of  the  last  doctrinal  division,  and  finally  exhorts 
both  parties  to  mutual  brotherly  feeling,  because  God  has 
glorified  Himself  in  both, — in  Israel  by  fidelity  in  fulfilling 
the  promise  given  to  the  fathers,  in  the  Gentiles  by  the 
manifestation  of  His  mercy  as  foretold  in  Scripture.  He 
concludes  with  a  benediction  (xv.  7-13). 

Nevertheless,  where  the  differences  in  the  Roman  Church  are  con- 
cerned, the  question  by  no  means  turns  on  the  maintenance  of  Jewish 
legality,  as  some  modern  expositors  still  hold  after  the  example  of 
patristic  expositors,  for  Paul,  judging  by  all  the  doctrinal  arguments  of 
.  the  epistle,  would  have  taken  up  a  very  different  position  with  respect  to 
such  opposition.  Moreover  the  Old  Testament  by  no  means  forbids  all 
use  of  flesh  and  wine,  and  the  days  of  whose  observance  xiv.  6  treats, 
cannot  from  the  connection  be  Jewish  festivals,  but  only  days  of  fasting. 
For  the  same  reason  we  cannot  agree  with  Ncander  and  some  of  the 
Fathers  in  assuming  a  reference  to  the  sacrifice  of  flesh  and  wine,  but 
only,  as  is  now  almost  universally  conceded,  to  an  asceticism  that  looks 
with  suspicion  on  all  enjoyment  beyond  what  is  necessary,  and  imposes 
special  exercises  of  abstinence  on  itself.  Since  Ritschl  this  phenomenon 
has  generally  been  traced  back,  probably  with  justice,  to  the  intrusion  of 
Essene  principles  into  the  Christian  Church.  Nor  is  it  at  all  impossible 
that  Gentile  Christianity  may  also  have  been  led  to  similar  asceticism 
by  the  intrusion  of  neo-Pythagorean  doctrines  and  rites,  as  Eichhorn 
maintained ;  bu-t  according  to  Bom.  xv.  7  ff.,  this  could  only  apply  to 
the  Church  of  Rome  in  isolated  cases.  It  is  certain  however  from  the 
position  Paul  takes  up  on  the  question,  that  the  assumption  of  a  dualistio 
principle  underlying  this  asceticism,  as  Baur  supposes  in  the  case  of 
the  Ebionites  here  said  to  be  attacked  (§  22,  4,  note  1),  cannot  be  enter- 
tained. 


320  AUTHENTICITY   OF   CHAPS.   XV.,  XVI. 

7.  In  conclusion  Paul  justiBes  his  writing  to  the  Church 
at  Rome,  of  which  he  is  persuaded  that  it  needed  only  to  be 
reminded  of  all  that  he  had  put  before  it,  by  a  reference  to 
his  Gentile  apostolic  calling,  whose  proper  task  he  regards 
as  fn!611ed  in  his  missionary  sphere  hitherto  (xv.  14-21). 
The  fact  is  generally  overlooked  that  he  only  now  goes  back 
to  the  introduction  of  his  epistle  (i.  13),  in  which  he  had  not 
yet  announced  his  visit,  but  had  only  spoken  of  his  desire  to 
visit  them  and  the  hindrances  that  had  hitherto  prevented 
him  carrying  out  his  wish,  preparatory  to  telling  them  that 
now  at  last  he  really  intended  to  visit  them  on  his  projected 
missionary  journey  to  Spain,  which  he  meant  to  undertake 
after  the  collection-journey  to  Jerusalem  had  been  accom- 
plished (xv.  22-29).  In  this  hope  he  commends  himself  to 
their  prayers  in  face  of  the  danger  that  threatened  him,  and 
concludes  with  a  benediction  (xv.  30-33). 

Following  the  example  of  Marcion  (comp.  Origen  on  Romans  z.  43) 
Baur,  Zeller,  Schwegler  and  Holsten  pronounced  the  last  two  chapters 
of  the  Boman  Epistle  spurious  (comp.  esp.  Theol.  Jahrb.,  1849,  4) ;  it 
being  necessary  for  Baur  to  do  this  because  they  were  directly  at  variance 
with  his  conception  of  the  Apostle's  anti-Judaism  (xv.  4,  8),  of  the  anti- 
Pauline  Judaism  of  the  Boman  Church  (xv.  14  ff.)  and  of  the  Gentile 
apostolic  undertakings  of  Paul  (xv.  19).  The  intended  visit  is  said  to 
be  here  transferred  to  the  through-journey  to  Spain  and  accounted  for  in 
an  unhistorical  way  by  the  completion  of  his  Oriental  mission  contra- 
dictory to  chap.  i.  (where  however  it  is  not  spoken  of  at  all);  meaningless 
repetitions  and  borrowings  from  the  Corinthian  Epistles,  aa  well  as  the 
list  of  notabilities  in  the  Boman  Church  being  said  to  mark  the  section 
as  the  work  of  a  Pauline  disciple  who,  in  the  spirit  of  the  author  of  the 
Acts,  wished  to  give  a  softening  counterpoise  to  the  harsh  anti-Judaism 
of  the  Apostle,  in  the  interest  of  peace  (comp.  against  this  Kling,  Stud, 
v.  Krit.,  1837,  8).  This  view  was  modified  by  Lucht  (Ueber  die  beidm 
letzten  Cap.  det  Komerbrieft,  Berlin,  1871)  in  such  a  way  as  that  the 
original  abrupt  conclusion  of  the  epistle  was  designedly  laid  aside  at  an 
early  period,  was  replaced  in  Marcionitic  circles  simply  by  the  conclud- 
ing doxology  and  in  catholic  circles  by  a  revision  in  which  much  that  is 
Pauline  is  still  retained  (comp.  Holtzmann,  Zeittchr.  f.  win.  Theol., 
1874,  4).  Volkmar  in  his  Rdmerbrief  has  even  attempted  to  deter- 
mine the  different  additions  made  to  the  genuine  close  of  the  letter  (XT. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE   ROMANS.  821 

33 ;  xvi.  1  f.,  21-24)  according  to  the  years  when  they  were  appended. 
Yet  even  Hilgenfeld,  Schenkel,  and  Pfleiderer  have  constantly  adhered 
to  the  genuineness  of  the  two  chapters,  and  last  of  all  Mangold  has 
defended  them  in  a  brilliant  way.  Dr.  Paulus  considered  chaps,  xv.  and 
xvi.  to  be  two  independent  supplements  addressed  to  the  authorities  of 
the  Church,  on  account  of  the  concluding  doxology  being  found  in  some 
MSS.  after  xiv.  23  and  the  absence  of  the  chapters  in  Marcion  (comp.  also 
Schenkel  in  his  Bibellex.,  V.) ;  and  Eichhorn,  after  the  example  of  Gries- 
bach,  even  separates  them  into  a  large  number  of  different,  independent 
leaflets.  But  there  is  no  doubt  that  Marcion  left  out  the  chapters 
solely  because  they  did  not  suit  his  anti-Judaism,  conduct  which  har- 
monizes with  his  treatment  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  (comp.  §  8,  6). 

Now  follows  a  recommendation  of  Phoebe  (xvi.  1  f.),  a 
deaconess  at  Cenchrea,  and  a  long  series  of  salutations  to 
different  persons,  many  of  whom  we  have  every  reason  to 
assume,  did  not  live  in  Rome  (xvi.  3-15)  ;  *  and  along  with 
an  injunction  to  salute  one  another  with  a  brotherly  kiss,  a 
greeting  from  all  Christian  Churches  (xvi.  16),  again  fol- 
lowed by  a  series  of  greetings  from  individuals  (xvi.  21-23) . 
But  the  warning  against  errorists  (xvi.  17-20),  who  are  no- 
where mentioned  in  the  great  doctrinal  part  of  the  epistle, 
is  quite  incomprehensible,  especially  as  the  joy  of  the  Apostle 
in  the  obedience  of  those  addressed  (xvi.  19)  points  beyond 
doubt  to  a  Church  founded  by  himself.  Hence  this  piece 
concluding  with  a  special  benediction  (xvi.  20)  was  a  sepa- 

1  Aquila  and  Priscilla  (xvi.  3)  had  dwelt  a  year  before  in  Ephesus, 
according  to  1  Cor.  xvi.  19,  and  it  is  implied  that  they  were  living  there 
even  later  (2  Tim.  iv.  19) ;  Epanetus,  the  firstfruits  of  Asia  (xvi.  6),  we 
should  rather  look  for  in  Ephesus,  where  Paul  first  laboured  in  Asia 
Minor ;  the  relatives  who  shared  his  captivity  (xvi.  7,  comp.  ver.  11), 
Urbanus,  who  was  his  fellow-labourer  (xvi.  9),  the  mother  of  Eufus  who 
showed  him  motherly  love  (xvi.  13),  the  household  who  appear  to  have 
been  converted  without  their  masters  (xvi.  10  f.),  and  a  series  of  persons 
whose  services  to  the  readers  or  to  Christianity  he  seemed  to  know  by 
intuition  (xvi.  6,  10,  12) ;  all  these  we  should  most  naturally  expect  t& 
find  in  his  former  mission-field.  Though  it  is  not  impossible  that  Paul 
had  become  acquainted  with  a  number  of  Church-members,  directly  or 
indirectly,  and  used  all  his  connections  with  Borne  as  links  for  saluta- 
tions to  them,  yet  endless  hypotheses  are  required  to  imagine  that  all 
these  persons  inhabited  Rome,  agreeably  to  what  Paul  says  of  them. 

T 


322  ANALYSIS  OP  THE  BPISTLB. 

rate  letter  of  recommendation  to  Phoabe  for  Ephesus,  which 
got  into  the  Roman  Epistle  because,  in  travelling  to  Rome 
by  Ephesus,  she  brought  our  epistle  thither.8  Then  follow 
greetings  from  Timothy  and  some  relatives  of  the  Apostle, 
from  Tertins  his  amanuensis  and  from  Corinthian  friends 
(xvi.  21-23)  ;  finally,  as  xvi.  24  is  spurious,  and  a  concluding 
benediction  has  already  been  appended,  a  solemn  doxology 
takes  its  place,  in  which,  with  a  glance  directed  to  the 
gospel  preached  in  the  epistle  and  in  pursuance  of  the 
conclusion  of  the  great  doctrinal  part,  the  wisdom  of  God 
is  extolled,  the  Church  being  commended  to  Him  (xvi. 
25-27).» 

*  This  view,  already  indicated  by  Eeggermann  (de  duplice  ep.  ad  Rom. 
appendice,  Hal.,  1767)  and  Semler  in  his  paraphrase  of  the  Boman  Epistle 
(Halle,  1767),  was  established  by  David  Schulz  (Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1829,  4), 
and  has  been  essentially  adopted  y  j  hott,  Beuss,  Laurent,  Sabatier 
and  others.  We  must  not  however,  with  Hausrath,  separate  xvi.  17-20, 
or  with  Bitsohl  (Jahrb.  f.  deuttche  Theol.,  1866),  Ewald  and  Mangold, 
xvi.  1  f.  from  the  Ephesian  fragment  and  leave  them  to  the  Boman 
Epistle,  much  less  with  the  two  latter  put  the  Ephesian  Epistle  in  question 
into  the  time  of  the  Boman  captivity  or  with  Amnion  still  later,  because 
we  should  otherwise  be  deprived  of  every  natural  explanation  as  to  how 
it  came  into  our  Boman  Epistle.  H.  Schultz  (Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Th.t 
1876,  1)  arbitrarily  attempted  to  transfer  xii.  1-xv.  7  also  into  this 
F.phesian  Epistle  written  towards  the  end  of  his  life.  Hilgenfeld  and 
Meyer  have  persistently  opposed  the  whole  hypothesis  (conip.  also 
8«yerlen). 

1  The  genuineness  of  this  doxology  was  first  contested  by  Beiche  and 
Krebl  in  their  commentaries  (1883, 45),  and  has  even  been  doubted  by  De- 
litzsoh.  Many  of  those  who  defend  the  two  concluding  chapters  reject 
this  at  least,  as  Hilgenfeld,  Pflcideror,  Seyerlen,  and  Mangold,  who  with 
Volkmar  hold  that  it  originated  about  145  in  the  interest  of  anti- 
Marcionism  ;  while  Holtzman  freely  ascribes  it  to  the  Autor  ad  Ephes. 
(A'rtt.  det  Eph.  und  Col.-llrief,  Leipzig,  1872).  But  the  attempt  to  prove 
its  un-Pauline  character  has  only  been  the  result  of  extreme  ingenuity ; 
and  although  the  phenomenon  that  the  doxology  follows  xiv.  3  (where  it 
is  put  by  Hofmann  and  Laurent  after  the  example  of  older  expositors 
and  critics)  in  some  codd.,  while  in  others  it  is  found  in  both  places,  or 
is  left  out  altogether,  can  no  longer  be  explained  with  certainty,  it  is 
very  possible  that  it  is  in  some  way  connected  with  Marcion's  omission 
of  the  dosing  chapters. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE   COLOSSIANS.  323 

§  24.     THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  COLOSSIANS. 

1.  In  Corinth  the  deputies  of  the  Churches  who  were  to 
accompany  the  Apostle  to  Jerusalem,  as  bearers  of  the  col- 
lection, gathered  round  him,  and  Luke  among  them;  and 
Paul  was  on  the  point  of  embarking  with  them  for  Syria, 
when  information  that  the  Jews  were  lying  in  wait  for  him, 
compelled  them  to  take  the  land  route  through  Macedonia. 
While  the  deputies  departed  thence  to  Troas,  the  Apostle 
remained  at  Philippi  with  Luke  during  the  Easter  festival, 
following  them  to  Troas,' where  they  remained  for  seven 
days  (Acts  xx.  3-6) -1  There  too  his  companions  alone  took 
ship  at  first,  for  Paul  went  to  Assos  on  foot ;  and  in  three 
days  they  got  to  Miletus,  where  Paul  had  appointed  to 
meet  the  Ephesian  presbyters,  for  he  was  anxious  to  reach 
Jerusalem  at  Pentecost  (xx.  7-16).  The  gloomy  forebodings 
with  which  the  Apostle  had  set  out  were  cou  firmed  anew  by 
prophetic  voices,  foretelling  that  bonds  and  afflictions  awaited 
him  in  Jerusalem ;  and  he  took  his  departui-e  without  any 
hope  of  another  meeting  (xx.  22-25).  They  then  coasted  as 
far  as  Patara  in  Lycia,  where  they  went  on  board  a  Phenician 
ship  that  was  freighted  for  Tyre,  and  took  to  the  open  sea. 
Arrived  at  Tyre,  they  tarried  for  seven  days,  and  Paul  was 
once  more  urgently  warned  against  the  journey  to  Jeru- 

1  Although  the  Acts  give  no  explanation  respecting  the  companions 
enumerated  in  xx.  4,  and  we  can  no  longer  account  for  the  fact  that 
Philippi,  with  the  Galatian  and  Achaian  Churches,  do  not  appear  to  be 
represented,  while  Berea  and  Thessalonica  and  the  Churches  of  Lycaonia 
and  Asia  Minor  are  fully  so,  there  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt  that  the  pass- 
age refers  to  the  deputies  whom  Paul,  according  to  1  Cor.  xvi.  3  f.,  was 
to  take  with  him  if  the  collection  proved  large.  The  &XP1  rW  'A<r/oj  is 
of  course  spurious,  since  Trophimus  was  in  Jerusalem  (xxi.  9)  and 
Aristarchus  still  in  Csesarea  with  the  Apostle  (xxvii.  ii.).  But  Luke 
cannot  have  first  attached  himself  to  the  Apostle  at  Philippi,  much  less 
the  others  in  Macedonia,  for  the  ffwetirfro  (xx.  4)  plainly  shows  that  they 
had  already  accompanied  him  on  the  journey  through  Macedonia,  and 
could  only  have  left  him  at  some  point  of  the  Macedonian  coast ;  while 
the  fytaj  (ver-  5)  presupposes  that  they  had  formerly  accompanied  the 
Apostle  along  with  the  author  of  the  Acts. 


324      THE  APOSTLE'S  JOURNEY  TO  JERUSALEM. 

salem,  while  in  Csesarea  the  prophet  Agabus  expressly  fore- 
told his  captivity  and  delivery  to  the  Romans.  Bat  Panl 
could  not  be  induced  to  ^ive  up  the  journey,  for  lie  believed 
it  was  divinely  appointed.  Thus,  accompanied  by  brethren 
from  Csesarea,  they  reached  Jerusalem,  where  Paul  and  his 
companions  took  up  their  quarters  with  Mnason  a  Cyprian 
(xxi.  1-17).  Whether  the  Apostle  obtained  his  desire  to  be 
in  Jerusalem  at  Pentecost,  cannot  now  be  ascertained,  for 
the  account  of  the  journey  is  by  no  means  exact  in  all 
particulars ;  but  it  is  very  improbable,  owing  to  the  unavoid- 
able delays  of  the  sea-voyage  and  the  fact  that  Paul  evidently 
made  no  further  haste  during  the  latter  part  of  the  journey. 
When  he  presented  himself  before  James  and  the  elders,  he 
was  advised,  in  order  to  appease  the  ill-feeling  of  certain 
Jewish  Christians  zealous  of  the  law,  who  professed  to  have 
heard  that  he  led  the  Jews  of  the  Diaspora  to  apostatize  from 
that  law,  to  take  the  Nazarite  vow  along  with  some  pious 
Jews  and  to  pay  the  cost  of  it,  which  he  willingly  agreed  to 
do  (xxi.  18-26)  .3  But  even  before  he  could  complete  the 
necessary  ceremonies,  the  Asiatic  Jews  stirred  up  an  insur- 
rection of  the  people  against  him,  under  the  pretext  that  he 


*  It  may  be  affirmed  most  positively  that  according  to  1  Cor.  vii.  18 
Paul  was  able  to  deny  tbe  report  that  he  had  led  those  who  were  Jews 
by  birth  to  apostasy  from  the  law,  and  had  particularly  instructed  them 
not  to  have  their  children  circumcised  any  more,  as  a  calumny,  since  his 
doctrine  of  the  essential  freedom,  even  of  Jews,  from  the  law,  was  by  no 
means  at  variance  with  the  fact  that  he  told  those  who  were  circumcised 
to  remain  in  that  state  of  life  in  which  they  received  the  call.  Nor 
could  he  object,  after  what  he  had  said  in  1  Cor.  ix.  20,  to  show  by  an 
act  of  Jewish  piety  that  had  nothing  to  do  with  justification  before  God 
either  in  his  view  or  that  of  the  Nazarites  in  company  with  whom  he 
solemnized  it,  that  he  was  no  enemy  to  the  law,  as  even  Pfleiderer 
(in  his  Paulinism)  concedes.  This,  however,  does  not  prevent  Luke's 
assumption,  that  the  heads  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  did  not  from  the 
first  share  the  suspicion  against  Panl,  from  being  somewhat  incorrect, 
nor  yet  the  way  in  which,  in  xxi.  24  he  represents  the  character  of  the 
Nazarite  vow,  especially  as  he  has  not  even  interpreted  their  appeal  to 
the  Jerusalem  decrees  correctly  (comp.  §  14,  4,  note  3). 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE   COLOSS1ANS.  325 

had  taken  Trophimus  an  Ephesian,  with  whom  he  had  been 
seen  the  day  before,  into  the  temple  (i.e.  into  the  fore-court 
of  the  Jews),  and  had  thus  polluted  it.  The  military  tribune 
Claudius  Lysias  interposed,  and  after  Paul  had  in  vain  sought 
to  quiet  the  people  by  the  discourse  he  was  permitted  to 
make,  he  commanded  him  to  be  led  away.  It  was  only  by 
appealing  to  his  Roman  citizenship  that  he  escaped  scourging 
(xxi.  27-xxii.  29).  The  next  day  the  tribune  brought  him 
before  the  Sanhedrim  j  but  when  Paul  succeeded  in  interest- 
ing the  Pharisaic  party  on  his  behalf,  the  council  divided,  and 
he  was  led  back  to  the  Castle  of  Antonia  (xxii.  30-xxiii. 
11).  The  tribune,  ho  wever,  on  receiving  information  through 
Paul's  sister's  son,  of  a  conspiracy  by  which  Paul  was  to  be 
assassinated  at  his  next  appearance  before  the  Sanhedrim, 
sent  the  prisoner  under  a  strong  military  escort  to  the  pro- 
curator of  Caesarea,  to  whom  he  gave  an  account  of  him ; 
and  Claudius  Felix  put  him  under  guard  in  the  Pretorium 
that  bore  the  name  of  Herod,  because  it  had  formerly  been 
a  palace  of  his  (xxiii.  12-35).  After  five  days  the  high-priest 
Ananias  came  to  Caesarea  with  a  Greek  orator  as  advocate, 
and  made  a  formal  charge  against  him  of  schism  and  vio- 
lating the  temple.  Paul  disallowed  the  fact,  and  the 
procurator  deferred  judgment.  Nor  did  a  hearing  before 
Felix's  Jewish  wife  lead  to  any  result,  and  when  after  two 
years  the  governor  was  recalled,  he  left  Paul  a  captive  to 
his  successor,  out  of  complaisance  to  the  Jews  (chap.  xxiv.). 
2.  Ccesarea,  an  important  city  with  a  good  harbour,  situated 
on  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  was  built  by  Herod  the  Great  on 
the  site  of  Strato's  Tower,  and  received  its  name  in  honour 
of  the  Emperor.  Here  the  procurators  of  Judea  resided; 
and  here  Paul  remained  in  imprisonment  for  fully  two 
years.  His  captivity  was  light  from  the  first,  and  he  was 
allowed  free  intercourse  with  his  friends  (Acts  xxiv.  23), 
though  still  in  fetters  and  under  military  guard  (xxiv.  27 ; 
xxvi.  29 ;  comp.  Col.  iv.  3,  18 ;  Philem.  9  f.).  The  procurator 


32G         CAPTIVITY  OP  THE  APOSTLE. 

hoped  his  release  might  be  purchased  by  a  bribe,  and  even, 
as  it  appears,  had  many  conferences  with  him  on  the  matter 
(xxiv.  26),  so  that  Paul  was  in  frequent  expectation  of  being 
set  free.  Hence  it  was  that  on  one  occasion  during  this  time 
he  was  so  certain  of  release  that  he  engaged  quarters  with 
Philemon  at  Colosse  (Philem.  22).  This  of  course  presup- 
poses" that  Paul,  notwithstanding  the  final  farewell  he  had 
taken  at  Miletus  on  his  journey  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xx.  25), 
and  his  eager  longing  to  come  to  Rome  (Rom.  i.  10),  had  iu 
the  meantime  seen  urgent  cause  for  returning  to  his  sphere 
of  work  in  Asia  Minor,  which  naturally  would  not  prevent 
his  ultimate  departure  for  Rome  from  that  place. 

• 

It  is  here  taken  for  granted  that  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  as  well  a* 
that  to  the  Colossians  which  accompanied  it,  was  written  in  Crosarea.1 
According  to  the  old  subscription  hoth  epistles  were  indeed  written  from 
Rome,  a  view  that  was  formerly  universal,  being  adopted  even  by 
Holtzroann  (Kritikder  Epheaen- 11.  Kolossrrlriffe,  Leipz.,  1872)  and  von 
Soden  (Jahrb.  f.  protett.  Throl.,  1885),  as  well  as  Hofmann,  KISpper  (der 
Brief  an  die  Colosser,  Berlin,  1882),  W.  Schmidt  and  L.  Schulze.  David 
Schulz  and  Wiggers  (Stitd.  u.  Krit.,  1829,  1841)  were  the  first  to  decide 
in  favour  of  Crosarea,  and  were  followed  by  Schott,  Boettger,  Thiersch, 
Reuss,  Schenkel,  Hausratb,  Laurent,  Meyer  and  others.  Much  that  is 
untenable  has  been  said  on  both  sides.9  But  the  fact  that  Paul  intended 


1  The  same  thing  naturally  holds  good  of  the  so-called  Ephesian 
Epistle,  but  since  this  requires  separate  consideration  and  scarcely  con- 
tributes an}  thing  to  the  question  here  discussed,  it  may  for  the  present 
be  entirely  put  aside. 

2  The  position  of  the  Apostle  during  his  imprisonment  at  Rome  was 
essentially  the  same  as  at  Cresarea.     Access  once  being  allowed  to  him 
(Acts  xxiv.  23),  he  could  preach  the  gospel  to  those  who  sought  him  as 
well  in  Cfesarea  as  in  Rome  (xxviii.  31) ;  for  the  centurion  on  guard  had 
in  no  case  any  means  of  ascertaining  who  belonged  to  his  tttoi;  and  Col. 
iv.  3  points  at  any  rate  to  a  relative  limitation  of  his  ministry.    All  con- 
siderations as  to  whether  the  escaped  slave  Onesimus  could  turn  more 
readily  towards  Rome  or  towards  Ctesarea  are  entirely  worthless,  cinco 
we  know  as  little  of  the  circumstances  of  his  flight  as  of  those  that 
brought  him  into  contact  with  the  captive  Paul  and  led  to  his  eon- 
version  (Philem.  10).     The  circle  of  friends  that  surrounded  him  in  the 
latter  as  the  former  place,  was  in  the  nature  of    things  continually 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE   COLOSSIANS.  82? 

in  case  of  his  release  to  go  from  Eome  to  Macedonia  (Phil.  ii.  2-1)  and  in 
Philem.  22  proposes  to  go  directly  to  Phrygia,  is  conclusive ;  while  the 
way  in  which  he  already  bespeaks  quarters  at  Colosse  (not  in  which  to 
settle  down,  as  Klopper  thinks,  hut  for  the  time  of  his  visit),  makes  it 
quite  improhable  that  the  letter  was  written  in  Rome,  where,  moreover, 
Paul  who  was  undergoing  a  regular  trial,  could  not  have  reckoned  on 
being  set  free  with  any  certainty. 

This  cause  is  manifestly  to  be  found  in  accounts  that  the 
Apostle  had  received  from  the  south-west  of  Phrygia,  a  dis- 
trict in  which  he  had  hitherto  enjoyed  no  opportunity  of  work- 
ing (§  18,  1,  note  1).  Christian  Churches  already  flourished 
there  in  the  three  towns  of  Laodicea,  Hierapolis  and  Colosse, 
situated  on  the  river  Lycus  that  flowed  into  the  Meander. 
A  certain  Epaphras  belonging  to  the  last-named  town,  had 
laboured  in  all  three  places  (iv.  12  f.,  comp.  i.  7),  evidently 
in  sympathy  with  Paul  (comp.  Col.  i.  23)  ;  and  may  possibly 
have  founded  the  Churches,  which  were  doubtless  essentially 
Gentile- Christian  like  that  at  Colosse  (ii.  11,  13,  comp.  i. 
24,  27).  As  to  the  time  that  had  since  elapsed  we  are 
entirely  ignorant,  since  it  is  by  no  means  clear  from  i.  2, 
as  Bleek  supposed,  that  the  Church  at  Colosse  was  not 
yet  firmly  constituted.  The  news  was  brought  thence  by 
Epaphras  (i.  8)  who  seems  to  have  stood  in  a  very  intimate 
relation  to  the  Apostle,  since  he  bore  him  company  in  his 
imprisonment,  alternately  with  Aristarchus  (Philem.  23, 
comp.  Col.  iv.  10),  and  was  therefore  probably  his  pupil. 
But  Philemon  too,  who  with  his  wife  Appia  gave  up  his 
house  for  the  meetings  of  the  Church,  must  have  been  con- 
changing,  so  that  the  fact  of  this  account  agreeing  with  or  differing  from 
that  of  Philippians  or  even  of  2  Tim.  can  prove  nothing.  In  both  places 
Timothy  is  with  him  ;  and  it  is  certain  that  the  presence  of  Tychicus, 
Aristarchus  and  Luke  in  Gaesarea  according  to  Acts  xx.  4  f.  is  just  as 
explicable  as  the  fact  that  only  the  two  latter  were  with  him  after  the 
despatch  of  the  Colossian  Epistle  (Acts  xxvii.  2  f.).  On  the  other  hand 
it  is  idle  to  compare  the  statement  that  Tychicus  only  travelled  from 
Borne  through  Ephesus  to  Colosse  with  the  account  of  Eph.  vi.  21  from 
which  he  seems  to  have  been  already  in  Colosse,  since  both  are  equally 
uncertain. 


328    JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  THEOSOPHISTS   IN   PHRYGIA. 

verted  by  the  Apostle  during  his  ministry  in  Asia  Minor 
(Philem.  2,  19).8 

According  to  the  Chronicon  of  Eusebius  the  three  towns  were  visited 
by  an  earthquake  in  the  tenth  year  of  Nero's  reign  (A.D.  C4) ;  according 
to  Paul  Orosiue  in  the  fourteenth  year  (A.D.  68).  If  this  was  the  same 
event  that  according  to  Tacitus  (Ann.,  14,  27)  destroyed  Laodicea,  it 
belongs  to  an  earlier  date,  viz.  the  seventh  year  of  the  Emperor  (A.D.  61) ; 
in  which  case  it  is  doubly  improbable  that  the  Colossian  Epistle  was 
written  from  Rome,  since  a  letter  written  so  soon  after  the  catastrophe 
might  certainly  be  expected  to  contain  some  reference  to  it.  But  if  the 
epistle  dates  from  Czesarea,  it  may  very  probably  have  been  written 
before  the  catastrophe. 

3.  The  news  from  the  Phrygian  Churches,  that  had  visibly 
caused  the  Apostle  great  uneasiness,  reported  the  appearance 
there  of  a  Jewish- Christian  party  who,  it  is  true,  did  not, 
like  the  Pharisaic  party,  entirely  destroy  the  foundations  of 
his  doctrine  of  grace  by  their  preaching  of  the  law,  but  on 
the  other  hand  seriously  imperilled  a  healthy  development 
of  the  Christian  faith  and  life.  It  does  not  appear  that  it  in 
any  way  attacked  the  faith  that  rested  on  the  simple  apos- 
tolic announcement  of  salvation,  but  it  promised  to  lead 
beyond  this  to  a  higher  state  of  perfection  (comp.  Col.  i. 
28),  to  the  true  consummation  (TrX^pwo-is,  comp.  ii.  10)  of 
Christian  knowledge  and  Christian  life.  The  first  was  to 
be  brought  about  by  initiation  into  a  peculiar  theosophio 
speculation,  to  which  as  a  higher  wisdom  or  philosophy  no 
little  value  was  attached  (ii.  8,  18,  23),  and  which  was  above 
all  to  open  up  a  view  into  the  whole  extent  and  fulness  of 

1  In  any  case  according  to  Philem.  2  Arcliippus  must  also  have  be- 
longed to  the  family  that  held  a  post  in  the  Church  at  Colosse  (Col.  iv. 
17),  even  if  he  were  not,  as  E15pper  supposes,  the  representative  of 
Epaphras;  and  he  must  evidently  have  laboured  in  opposition  to  the 
new  errors,  just  as  the  Apostle  did,  since  Paul  calls  him  his  ffvyrparnlrrijt. 
Nor  had  the  Apostle  any  lack  of  persona]  acquaintances  in  Laodicea 
(Col.  iv.  15)  probably  made  during  his  Ephesian  ministry,  but  he  was 
certainly  unknown  by  face  to  the  Churches  of  that  district  according  to 
ii.  1.  It  is  only  by  laboured  explanation  of  the  passage  that  this  has 
teen  denied  by  David  Schulz  and  Wiggers  (Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1829,  1838). 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE   COLOSSIANS.  329 


the  Divine  essence  (irX^ptafia,  comp.  i.  19,  ii.  9).  It  was  cer- 
tainly not  denied  that  this  had  been  revealed  in  Christ  ;  but 
it  was  supposed  to  have  also  unfolded  itself  in  diverse  ranks 
of  higher  spirits  (i.  16),  into  which  a  deeper  insight,  pro- 
bably by  means  of  visions  (ii.  18)  was  hoped  for.  It  was 
supposed  that  the  highest  step  of  knowledge  itself  would  be 
characterized  by  a  feeling  of  utter  unworthiness  to  approach 
the  full  glory  of  God  of  which  so  overpowering  an  im- 
pression had  been  received,  and  that  it  would  be  enough  to 
see  it  in  the  angels  and  through  them  to  come  into  myster- 
ious contact  with  the  Godhead,  so  that  the  angels  themselves 
became  the  object  of  a  kind  of  Divine  worship  (ii.  23,  comp. 
18).  With  this  theosophy  was  associated  an  asceticism 
based  on  the  spiritualistic  view  that  closer  intercourse  with 
the  higher  heavenly  world  was  possible  in  proportion  to 
freedom  from  all  contact  with"  the  perishable  world  of  sense 
(ii.  21  f.)  ;  on  which  account  strict  abstinence  in  meat  and 
drink  was  imposed  (ii.  16).  This  led,  though  in  a  different 
way  from  the  Pharisaic  teaching  of  the  law,  back  to  a  state 
of  legality,  in  which  Paul  could  only  see  a  relapse  into  a 
stage  of  religion  that  had  already  been  surmounted  (ii.  20). 
In  this  way  the  rules  of  life  laid  down  by  the  Mosaic  law  even 
came  to  be  regarded  not  indeed  as  a  condition  of  the  attain- 
ment of  salvation,  but  yet  as  the  form  of  life  that  most 
closely  corresponded  to  the  standpoint  of  Christian  perfec- 
tion. Hence  probably  the  high  value  attached  to  circum- 
cision (ii.  11  ;  iii.  11),  by  which  the  whole  life  of  the  body 
was  from  the  first  consecrated  to  God  in  a  strict  sense  ;  and  to 
the  Jewish  festivals  (ii.  16)  by  which  the  daily  life  was  sup- 
posed to  gain  a  higher  consecration,  unless,  as  in  Galatia,  it 
served  simply  to  commend  the  whole  system  to  the  Gentile- 
Christian  consciousness  that  was  not  satisfied  with  the  bald 
worship  of  the  ancient  Christians.  Paul  perceived  the 
whole  danger  of  this  tendency  in  which  the  unique  majesty 
and  dignity  of  Christ  were  threatened  by  His  incorporation 


&30  ASCETICISM  OF  THE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  THEOSOPHISTS. 

in  the  Pleroma  that  embraced  the  whole  spirit-world  of 
heaven,  the  full  sufficiency  of  His  saving  mediation  by  tho 
worship  of  angels,  and  the  sound  development  of  Christian 
faith  and  life  by  a  new  system.  He  saw  how  the  Phrygian 
people,  always  disposed  to  religious  enthusiasm,  were  only 
too  susceptible  to  such  theosophic  asceticism,  and  how  it 
would  at  least  unsettle  the  Churches  once  more  as  to 
whether  they  possessed  in  simple  faith  to  Christ  the  true 
way  of  salvation  and  the  certainty  of  future  blessedness 
(comp.  L  23,  ii.  2,  18,  comp.  i.  5,  27). 

Thia  disturbance  of  the  Phrygian  Churches  naturally  proceeded 
neither  from  Jews,  as  Eichhorn  and  Schneckenburger  (Stud.  u.  Krit., 
1832,  4)  held,  nor  from  heathen  philosophers  as  the  Church  Fathers 
supposed,  since  Paul  measured  their  teaching  by  the  standard  of  Chris- 
tian duty  (ii.  19),  but  from  Jewish  Christians,  as  their  high  estimate  of 
circumcision  and  Jewish  festivals  shows.  But  since  they  traced  their 
theosophic  doctrines  as  well  as  their  asceticism  back  to  ancient  tradition 
(ii.  8,  22),  they  must  have  been  allied  to  Essenism,  the  only  department 
of  Judaism  where  such  tradition  was  current,  and  whose  influence  we 
have  already  encountered  in  Roman  Jewish  Christianity  (§  23,  6).  This 
view,  already  adopted  by  Chemnitz,  Storr  and  Creduer,  has  recently 
become  predominant,  for  Hofmann,  who  habitually  ignores  all  historical 
interpretation  of  such  phenomena  and  puts  an  arbitrary  construction  of 
his  own  on  them,  does  not  come  into  account.  The  tendency  was  for- 
merly designated  cabbalistic  (comp.  Otuander  Tii>>.  Zeittchrijt,  1834,  3 
following  Herder) ;  but  the  Cabbala  is  a  much  later  development,  whose 
deepest  roots  can  only  be  traced  back  to  theosophic  Judaism.  If,  with 
Neander,  Schott  and  Grau  (comp.  Clemens,  Zeitschrift.  f.  wist.  Theol., 
1871),  we  identify  the  tendency  with  precursors  of  the  Gnostics,  yet 
the  very  beginnings  of  Gnosticism  go  back  in  some  way  to  theosophio 
Jewish  Christianity.  But  we  must  entirely  reject  Block's  view  that  those 
who  made  their  appearance  at  Colosse  were  Pharisaic  Jewish  Christians, 
or  that  Pharisaic  Jewish  Christians  there  carried  on  their  work  side  by 
side  with  Essenes  and  Gnostics,  as  Reuss  maintained ;  for  the  system 
attacked  never  goes  back  directly  to  the  Old  Testament,  but  takes  its 
stand  on  human  traditions,  while  Paul  never  appeals  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  he  does  in  the  Galatian  Epistle,  his  polemic  being  entirely 
different  from  that  against  the  legal  Jndaists. 

4.  Paul  could  not  remain  simply  on  the  defensive  where 
this  new  tendency  was  concerned.  He  perceived  that  it  met 


THE   EPISTLE   TO  THE   COLOSSIANS.  331 

a  deeply  seated  want  of  Christian  endeavour  after  know- 
ledge ;  and  he  was  persuaded,  as  we  know  from.  1  Cor.  ii., 
that  the  gospel  concealed  a  Divine  wisdom  that  was  fully 
able  to  satisfy  such.  need.  The  comparative  restraint  of  his 
imprisonment  gave  him  sufficient  time  and  rest  to  penetrate 
into  the  depths  of  this  Divine  wisdom.  It  was  only  neces- 
sary to  follow  up  the  train  of  thought  that  had  led  him  from 
the  Divine  glory  of  the  exalted  Christ  to  infer  His  pre-exist- 
ence  and  activity  (comp.  "Weiss,  Lehrbuch  der  bibl.  Theol.  des 
N.  T.,  4  Aufl.,  Berlin,  1884,  §  79),  in  order  from  his  point  of 
view  to  show  how  the  whole  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwells 
in  Christ  (Col.  i.  19,  ii.  9)  ;  and  from  this  relation  to  all 
created  things,  including  all  ranks  of  heavenly  beings  (i. 
16  f.,  ii.  10)  to  demonstrate  the  central  cosmic  significance 
of  Christ.  The  saving  work  of  Christ  also  which  he  had 
hitherto  regarded  only  from  the  standpoint  of  a  human  need 
of  salvation  now  appeared  in  a  new  light,  inasmuch  as  the 
victory  over  powers  hostile  to  God  was  gained  by  Christ, 
and  his  kingly  dominion  set  up  in  their  place  (ii.  15,  comp. 
i.  13).  Thus  a  way  was  opened  for  closing  once  more  the 
breach  that  sin  had  made  in  the  Divine  world  of  spirits,  by 
leading  up  to  Him  who  was  destined  to  be  their  head  (i.  20, 
comp.  i.  16,  ii.  10) ;  just  as  the  opposition  between  heaven 
and  earth  had  already  been  done  away  in  a  certain  sense  (iii. 
1  ff.).  Moreover  in  the  apprehension  of  this  Divine  wisdom, 
Paul  perceived  a  higher  stage  of  Christian  development,  but 
found  it  necessary  to  lay  the  more  stress  on  the  fact  that 
all  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge  were  hidden  in  the 
secret  of  salvation  that  his  gospel  announced,  the  revelation 
of  which  would  lead  finally  not  to  the  satisfying  of  the 
desire  for  knowledge  but  to  participation  in  the  fulness  of 
salvation  (ii.  2  f .,  comp.  i.  5,  20  f.).  In  proportion  as  the 
increasing  tendency  to  speculation  threatened  to  bring  about 
a  split  in  parties  and  schools,  he  found  it  necessary  to  give 
prominence  to  the  organic  unity  of  the  Church  under  Christ 


332  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

its  head  (i.  18,  24,  ii.  19)  and  the  universal  character  of  the 
gospel  by  which  it  had  been  founded  (i.  6,  23).  In  op- 
posing the  errors  of  a  false  asceticism  that  rested  on  false 
theosophy,  he  was  forced  not  only  to  lay  stress  on  the 
general  proposition  that  all  growth  in  knowledge  must 
result  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  Divine  will  (i.  9  f.),  and  must 
tend  to  the  complete  renewal  of  the  moral  man  (ii.  9  S.), 
but  also  to  prove  in  detail  that  Christian  sanctification  is 
shown  not  in  the  carrying  out  of  arbitrary  enactments,  but 
in  the  reorganization  of  domestic  and  social  life.  Hence 
Paul  enters  much  more  fully  here  than  in  the  older  Epistles 
into  the  regulation  of  the  Christian  moral  life,  by  minute 
instructions  regarding  all  such  relations.  He  could  even 
form  a  new  estimate  of  the  Old  Testament  law,  if  its  fulfil- 
ment were  no  longer  made  a  condition  of  salvation,  while 
laying  greater  stress  on  its  typical  character  (ii.  11,  17). 

In  the  conflict  with  the  principles  of  Judaism,  its  stereotyped  dog- 
matic vocabulary  naturally  fell  away  likewise,  the  shibboleths  that 
characterized  its  theses  and  antitheses  disappearing  by  degrees.  On  the 
other  hand  the  theosophio  system  had  evolved  a  number  of  termini 
Uehnici  that  the  Apostle  would  on  no  account  allow  it  to  appropriate, 
but  he  adopted  and  reatamped  them  with  his  own  meaning.  Moreover 
the  wealth  of  Paul's  intellect  lent  him  new  expressions  for  the  new 
thoughts  that  stirred  him  at  this  time,  giving  him  power  to  present  old 
truths  in  a  new  form,  Hence  it  is  not  strange  that  we  should  meet  with 
new  peculiarities  of  language  in  the  letters  written  during  his  captivity ; 
and  miss  many  expressions  that  appear  in  the  earlier  ones.  In  addition 
to  this,  the  party  that  stood  over  against  the  Apostle  did  not  attack  his 
doctrine  of  salvation,  so  that  all  necessity  for  its  logical  development,  as 
well  as  for  argumentation  to  establish  it  or  combat  its  antithesis  dis- 
appeared. The  question  turned  rather  on  a  purely  thetical  representa- 
tion unfolding  the  whole  depth  and  fulness  of  evangelical  truth,  that 
necessarily  gave  a  somewhat  different  colouring  to  his  mode  of  presen- 
tation. The  language,  more  forcible  than  elsewhere,  moves  on  in  long- 
drawn  sentences  loosely  connected  by  relatives  or  participial  construc- 
tions, and  is  often  somewhat  encumbered  by  the  abundance  of  thoughts 
and  references  flowing  in  upon  him.  Only  where  the  polemic  assumes 
a  repellent  character  does  it  sharpen  into  antitheses  frequently  inti- 
mating more  than  is  said. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE   COLOSSIANS.  333 

5.  The  first  thing  that  Paul  did  on  receiving  the  news 
from  Phrygia  that  gave  him  such  uneasiness,  was  to  write  a 
letter  to  Laodicea,  where  the  relations  were  certainly  such  as 
to  give  rise  to  the  greatest  apprehension.  This  epistle  has 
unfortunately  been  lost  (§  16,  2)  j  but  the  fact  that  he  directs 
the  Colossians  to  read  it,  and  to  send  the  letter  they  had  re- 
ceived to  Laodicea  (Col.  iv.  16),  proves  that  the  two  epistles 
supplemented  one  another  and  were  essentially  directed 
against  the  same  dangers.  It  was  unquestionably  the  need 
of  counteracting  these  by  his  personal  influence  that  led 
him  to  postpone  even  the  journey  to  Rome  which  he  so 
eagerly  desired,  and  to  plan  a  visit  to  the  Phrygian  Churches 
immediately  on  his  release  (Philem.  v.  22).  Since  that  was 
still  uncertain,  he  resolved  to  write  fully  to  the  Colossians 
also.  He  presents  himself  to  them  in  the  introductory 
greeting  as  the  Apostle  called  by  the  will  of  God,  since  it 
is  in  this  character  that  he  has  to  speak  to  them  (i.  1  f.). 
He  thanks  God  for  the  good  accounts  he  received  of  them 
through  Epaphras,  laying  stress  on  the  fact  that  the  gospel 
they  had  received  through  this  latter,  which  together  with 
his  own  promise  of  salvation  had  become  the  foundation  of 
their  life  of  love,  increased  and  brought  forth  fruit  in  all  the 
world  (i.  3-8).  He  desires  their  growth  in  the  knowledge 
that  would  teach  them  to  be  fruitful  and  increase  in  the 
works  of  Christian  life  as  well  as  in  patience,  from  gratitude 
toward  God  who  had  fitted  them  for  the  attainment  of 
heavenly  perfection  by  delivering  them  from  the  power  of 
Satan  and  transplanting  them  into  the  kingdom  of  His  Son 
who  had  procured  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins  (i.  9-14). 
Forthwith  he  takes  the  opportunity  of  extolling  the  Son,  as 
destined  in  His  unique  relation  to  God  and  to  the  first  and 
second  creation,  to  bring  about  the  final  consummation 
(i.  16-20),  reminding  them  that  they  themselves  through 
His  saving  work  had  already  begun  to  participate  in  it  and 
would  attain  the  goal  if  they  held  fast  by  the  universal 


334  ANALYSIS   OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

gospel  (i.  21-23).  Characterizing  himself  as  the  minister 
of  this  gospel,  he  is  led  to  speak  of  himself  more  exactly 
as  fulfilling  his  Divine  calling  by  his  sufferings  and  labour 
on  behalf  of  the  gospel,  and  in  fulfilling  it  turns  to  them 
also  (i.  24-ii.  3).  He  thus  comes  to  speak  of  the  danger 
in  which  they  stand,  and  warns  them  against  the  deceit- 
ful wisdom  of  men  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  Christ  who 
is  preached  to  them  in  the  gospel  (ii.  4-9).  He  then  once 
more  emphasizes  the  fact,  for  which  the  discussions  in 
i.  15-23  have  prepared  the  way,  that  in  this  Christ  they 
have  the  whole  fulness  of  the  Godhead  and  the  whole  fulness 
of  salvation,  true  circumcision  and  the  new  life  as  contrasted 
with  their  former  death  in  sin,  after  He  has  blotted  out 
their  guilt  on  the  cross,  and  gained  the  victory  over  the 
Satanic  powers  (ii.  10-15).  He  now  warns  them  against  re- 
lapse into  ceremonial  which,  in  spite  of  its  foundation  in  the 
deepest  humility  and  worship  of  the  heavenly  powers,  leads 
only  to  carnal  pride  and  is  no  longer  appropriate  to  those 
who  with  Christ  are  dead  to  the  world,  and  with  Him  have 
risen  again,  knowing  that  their  true  life  is  already  in 
heaven  (ii.  16-iii.  4).  This  leads  him  to  the  earthly  ele- 
ments that  still  cling  to  them,  the  heathen  sins  of  the  old 
man,  which  must  give  place  to  the  new  man,  in  whom  all 
differences  of  pre-Christian  life  are  done  away  in  Christ  (iii. 
5-11);  whereupon  he  delineates  the  distinguishing  features 
of  this  new  man  as  depicted  in  the  life  of  the  individual  and 
of  the  community  (iii.  12-17).  Then  follows  in  short,  sharp 
lines,  the  Christian  table,  setting  forth  the  duties  of  hus- 
bands and  wives,  children  and  parents,  slaves  and  masters, 
dwelling  at  greater  length  on  slaves  because  the  need  of  a 
re-organization  of  their  condition  in  the  spirit  of  Christianity 
was  greatest  (iii.  18-iv.  1).  He  then  commends  himself  to 
their  prayers,  adds  a  word  of  admonition  as  to  their  attitude 
towards  the  heathen  world  by  which  they  were  surrounded 
(iv.  2-6)  and  after  dismissing  personal  matters  (iv.  7-17) 


THE   EPISTLE   TO  THE   COLOSSIANS.  335 

concludes  with  a  salutation  in  his  own  hand  in  which  he 
beseeches  them  to  remember-  his  bonds  (iv.  18). 

From  the  personal  matter  we  learn  in  the  first  place  that  Tychicus 
went  to  Colosse  with  the  letter,  his  main  object  being  to  set  the  Church 
at  rest  by  more  particular  accounts  respecting  hia  welfare,  and  also  that 
he  was  accompanied  by  the  converted  slave  Onesimus  (iv.  7  ff.).  Among 
the  greetings  Paul  sends  he  mentions  first  of  all  three  Jewish  Christians 
who  had  been  tbe  greater  comfort  to  him  because  they  were  his  only 
countrymen  who  worked  with  him  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  Hence  it 
appears  that  the  rest  held  aloof  from  him  from  fear  of  being  implicated 
in  his  process,  and  did  not  trouble  themselves  about  missionary  matters. 
These  three  were  the  Jew  Aristarchus  of  Thessalonica  (Acts  xix.  29,  xx. 
4),  the  former  fellow-traveller  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  John  Mark  (comp. 
§  13,  4 ;  15,  1),  who  was  also  on  the  point  of  setting  out  for  Asia  Minor 
and  whom  he  commends  to  the  Church ;  and  a  certain  Jesus  Justus  (iv. 
10  f.).  Of  his  Gentile  Christian  fellow- workers,  Epaphras,  who  notwith- 
standing his  warm  interest  in  the  Phrygian  Churches  intended  to  remain 
with  the  Apostle,  even  sharing  his  captivity  (Philem.  v.  23)  sends  greet- 
ing, also  the  physician  Luke  who  here  meets  us  for  the  first  time,  and 
Demas  (iv.  12  ff.).  Paul  sends  greetings  to  Laodicea,  especially  to  the 
Church  in  the  house  of  Nyinplias,  and  arranges  an  exchange  of  letters 
between  the  two  Churches  (iv.  15  f.).  Finally  he  sends  a  word  of  friendly 
admonition  to  Archippus  to  encourage  him  in  the  office  he  had  under- 
taken (iv.  17). 

6.  Mayerhoff  (Der  Brief  an  die  Colosser,  Berlin,  1838)  was 
the  first  to  attack  the  genuineness  of  the  Colossian  Epistle, 
contending  that  the  language  and  method  of  teaching  were 
in  many  respects  un-Pauline.  He  tried  to  prove  a  dependence 
of  this  epistle  on  the  Ephesian  one  and  held  that  the 
heresy  it  combated  was  the  Cerinthian,  while  Neander  and 
F.  Nitzsch  (in  his  AnmerJcungen  on  Bleek's  Vorlesungen  uber 
die  Briefe  an  die  KoL,  Philem.,  Eph.,  Berlin,  1865)  thought 
it  referred  to  the  precursors  of  this  heresy.  Ewald  too 
(Sendschreiben  des  Ap.  Paulus,  1857,  comp.  Renan)  thought 
that  the  difference  between  it  and  the  old  Paulines  could  only 
be  explained  on  the  hypothesis  that  Timothy  drew  up  the 
epistle  after  previously  discussing  its  contents  with  the 
Apostle ;  Paul  dictating  more  and  more  towards  the  close, 
and  finally  adding  the  conclusion  with  his  own  hand.  Baur's 


336  CRITICISM  OP  THE  EPISTLE. 

criticism  was  still  more  trenchant.  From  his  standpoint, 
that  the  teaching  of  the  four  great  epistles  is  the  sole 
criterion  of  Paulinism,  he  regarded  (comp.  his  Paulus,  1845) 
all  that  went  beyond  this  teaching  as  an  indication  that  the 
epistle  had  its  origin  in  a  circle  permeated  by  Gnostic  ideas, 
holding  that  the  TrX^pw/ia  was  the  Gnostic  Pleroma  and  the 
heavenly  powers  the  Gnostic  aeons.  He  looked  upon  it  as 
an  attack  on  Ebionism,  and  in  the  mention  of  the  Petrine 
Mark  and  the  Pauline  Luke,  saw  the  union-tendency  of  the 
epistle,  also  shown  in  the  emphasis  laid  on  the  unity  of  the 
Church.  Schwegler  in  his  Nachap.  Zeitalter  (1846),  sought 
to  prove  more  fully  that  the  author  endeavoured  by  means  of 
the  growing  Gnostic  tendency  to  suppress  Essene  Ebionism ; 
and  by  the  emyvoxris  and  ayd-Try  to  do  away  with  the  original 
antithesis  of  the  apostolic  age  between  TTUTTI?  and  cpya 
(comp.  on  the  other  side  Klopper,  De  Origine  Epist.  ad  Eph. 
et  Col.,  Gryph.,  1852).  To  this  view  the  Tubingen  school 
in  its  stricter  sense  has  adhered  (comp.  Plank  and  Kostlin 
in  d.  Theol,  Jahrbiichern,  1847,  50)  down  to  Hilgenfeld,  who, 
however,  again  returned  to  the  opinion  that  the  polemic  of 
the  epistle  was  directed  mainly  against  Cerinthus  and  there- 
fore went  back  to  the  time  of  Hadrian.  A  new  phase  of 
criticism  was  inaugurated  by  Holtzmann  in  his  Krit.  d.  Eph.- 
w.  Colosserbriefe  (Leipzig,  1872).  After  the  example  of  Uitzig 
he  tried  to  prove  that  indications  of  genuineness  and  spu- 
riousness,  as  of  originality  and  dependence  with  respect  to 
the  Ephesian  Epistle,  were  interwoven  in  this  epistle,  and 
therefore  attempted  critically  to  extract  a  genuine  Pauline 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians  from  our  epistle,  which  the  Autor 
ad  Ephesios,  after  having  imitated  it  in  his  leading  epistle, 
on  his  side  again  interpolated  (comp.  also  Honig  in  d.  Zeitschr. 
f.  wiss.  Theol.,  1872,  1).  He  was  followed  in  the  main  by 
Hausrath  in  his  NTliche  Zeitgeschichte  (1874)  and  Immer  in 
his  NTliche  Theol.  (1877);  while  Pfleiderer  in  his  Paulinismui 
(1873)  only  denied  that  the  interpolation  was  due  to  the 


THE   EPISTLE   TO  PHILEMON.  337 

Autor  ad  Ephesiop  "N"ot  only,  however,  did  Reuss  and 
Schenkel  (Christusbild  d.  Apostel,  1879)  adhere  to  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  whole  epistle,  but  Klopper  in  his  Kommentar 
(1882)  again  defended  it  in  detail,  and  endeavoured  to  prove 
the  indefensibility  of  the  hypothetical  genuine  Pauline 
epistle  (comp.  also  Grimm,  Zeitschrift  f.  wiss.  Theol.,  1883, 
2).  Finally  v.  Soden  (Jdhrl.  f.  protest.  Theol.,  1885),  with 
whom  Mangold  seems  to  agree,  again  made  a  most  careful 
examination  of  Holtzmann's  hypothesis  and  proved  that  most 
of  what  he  had  rejected  was  not  un-Pauline,  and  neither 
showed  a  dependence  on  the  Ephesian  Epistle  nor  other 
ground  of  objection.  In  spite  of  this,  he  too  rejects  i.  16— 
20,  ii.  10,  15  and  ii.  18  6,  which  naturally  does  away  with 
the  hypothesis  of  interpolation;  for  if  the  object  were  really 
to  attack  an  advanced  opposition  in  the  name  of  the  Apostle, 
the  interpolator  woulgl  certainly  not  have  been  satisfied 
with  this  indirect  reference  to  it,  which  moreover  is  lost 
in  its  aphoristic  form.  Nor  is  there  any  historical  reason 
why  we  should  not  suppose  that  the  doctrine  of  angels  com- 
bated in  these  passages  was  already  embraced  by  Jewish- 
Christian  theosophists ;  or,  if  an  advance  of  Paulinism  side 
by  side  with  opposing  developments  be  once  conceded,  why 
we  should  not  assume  that  it  went  so  far  as  the  utterances 
in  these  passages.  But  the  personal  allusions  of  the  epistle, 
that  could  only  to  a  very  small  extent  have  been  drawn 
from  Philem.  23,  form  a  powerful  argument  in  favour  of  the 
genuineness. 

7.  The  slave  Onesimus,  who  accompanied  Tychicus  to 
Colosse  (Col.  iv.  9),  carried  with  him  to  his  master  a 
letter  in  the  Apostle's  own  hand  (Philem.  v.  19).  When 
Paul  converted  him  (v.  10)  he  had  enjoined  upon  him 
as  a  duty  to  return  at  once  to  his  master  from  whom  he 
had  escaped.  After  the  introductory  greeting,  he  begins 
with  the  usual  thanksgiving  for  all  the  good  he  had 

heard  of  Philemon  (v.  1-7) ;   and  although  he  might  with 

z 


338  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

propriety  command,  he,  the  aged  Paul  in  bonds,  would  only 
give  him  a  word  of  exhortation  with  respect  to  his  spiritual 
child  who  had  become  so  dear  to  him  and  who  would  now 
do  honour  to  his  name,  as  he  adds  with  a  alight  touch  of 
humour  (v.  8-12).  He  would  gladly  have  retained  him 
in  his  service,  but  had  no  wish  to  compel  Philemon  to  make 
him  this  present ;  and  it  might  be  that  Onesimus  was  given 
back  to  his  master  that  he  should  henceforth  be  a  beloved 
brother  to  him  instead  of  a  slave  (v.  13-16).  The  ques- 
tion of  giving  him  his  freedom  is  not  mooted:  it  was 
unnecessary  if  Philemon  received  him  as  he  would  receive 
the  Apostle,  who  in  conclusion  half  jestingly  binds  himself 
in  writing  to  pay  all  the  loss  he  had  suffered  through  the 
slave,  reminding  him  however  that  he  could  easily  make  a 
larger  counter-reckoning  against  Philemon  as  being  indebted 
to  him  for  all  that  he  had,  and  might  demand  that  he  should 
be  to  him  a  true  Onesimus  (v.  17-20).  Only  at  the  end,  in 
expressing  his  confidence  that  Philemon  would  do  still  more 
than  h*e  required  of  him,  do  we  find  a  possible  allusion  to  the 
Apostle's  release,  unless  the  wish  to  keep  this  child  of  his 
imprisonment  entirely  for  his  constant  service  be  here  in- 
timated. He  already  bespeaks  lodgings  in  the  hope  of  soon 
being  free,  sends  greeting  from  the  same  fellow-workers  as 
in  the  Colossian  Epistle  with  the  exception  of  Jesus  Justus, 
and  concludes  with  a  benediction  (v.  21-25).  The  close 
connection  of  this  undoubtedly  genuine  monument  of  the 
Apostle's  delicate  tact  and  genial  amiability  with  the 
Colossian  Epistle  forms  no  unimportant  point  in  favour  of 
the  genuineness  of  the  latter. 

Wieseler  (de  Epittola  Laodicena,  Gott.,  1844)  transferred  Philemon 
to  Laodicca,  in  which  he  was  followed  by  Thiersch  and  Laurent,  pre- 
sumably because  Archippns,  who  according  to  vers.  2  was  so  closely 
connected  with  him,  must  from  Col.  iv  17  have  been  a  Laodicean; 
although  Onesimus  according  to  Col.  iv.  9  was  a  Colossian,  and  was 
sent  to  Colospe.  But  his  assumption  that  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  is 
the  one  mentioned  in  Col.  iv.  16,  which  the  Colossians  were  to  receive 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE   EPHESIANS.  339 

from  Laodicea,  is  quite  absurd.  Holtzmann  in  this  respect  following 
Hitzig's  footsteps,  even  puts  Philemon  and  his  house  at  Ephesus, 
and  in  the  epistle  addressed  to  him,  especially  in  vers.  4-6,  finds  addi- 
tions of  the  Autor  ad  Ephesios  (Zeitschrift  f.  wiss.  Theol.,  1873,  3),  be- 
cause in  fact  the  epistle,  from  its  resemblance  to  the  Golossian  Epistle, 
proves  that  it  proceeded  from  the  same  hand  and  was  written  at  the 
same  time.  Baur  alone  has  ventured  to  pronounce  it  spurious,  though 
this  is  the  natural  consequence  of  the  rejection  of  the  Colossian  Epistle ; 
but  his  assertion  that  we  have  here  the  germ  of  a  Christian  romance, 
afterwards  drawn  out  in  the  recognition  and  reunion  scenes  of  the 
pseudo-Clementine  homilies,  is  rejected  even  by  Hilgenfeld,  though  very 
inconsistently. 


§  25.    THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS. 

1.  The  Epistle  of  Paul  bearing  the  inscription 
*E<£eo-iovs  in  all  our  MSS.,  is  closely  connected  with  that  to 
the  Colossians.  The  Apostle  begins  by  addressing  his  readers 
simply  as  the  saints,  who  are  likewise  believers  in  Christ 
Jesus  (i.  1) ;  since  the  tv  "E^eVu  was  unquestionably  wanting 
in  the  oldest  tezt.  Marcion  cannot  have  read  it,  because 
he  considered  the  epistle  as  addressed  to  the  Laodiceans; 
nor  can  Tertullian,  since  he  accuses  him  of  falsifying  the 
titulus  (i.e.  the  inscription),  but  not  the  text,  and  yet  he 
does  not  appeal  to  the  text  against  him,  but  only  to  the 
veritas  ecclesi®,  i.e.  the  tradition  contained  in  the  inscrip- 
tion, which  alone  was  correct  in  his  view.  Neither  did 
Origen  find  the  words  in  his  text  (comp.  Cramer,  Catenae  in 
Epp.  Pauli.,  Oxford,  1842,  p.  102).  Basil  expressly  testifies 
that  they  were  not  in  the  old  manuscripts  (contra  Eunom. 
2, 19),  and  Jerome  (1, 1)  can  only  combat  that  interpretation 
of  the  address  which  implies  the  want  of  the  ev  *E<£eb-<j>,  by 
setting  against  it  the  opinion  of  others,  that  these  words 
stood  there  in  writing,  while  they  are  wanting  in  our  two 
oldest  Codd.  (Vatic,  and  Sin.).1  The  whole  character  of 

1  We  cannot  meet  this  result  of  textual  criticism  by  contending  that 
the  address  would  be  unintelligible  without  the  e>  "E<f>i<r<p.  Basil's 
fanciful  way  of  explaining  the  address  by  supposing  that  the  Christians 


340        ORIGINAL  DESTINATION  OF  THE   EPISTLE. 

the  epistle  is  in  harmony  with  this  general  address.  It  is 
true  i.  15  does  not  state  that  Paul  had  only  heard  of  the  faith 
of  his  readers ;  but  the  way  in  which  he  gives  it  simply  as 
Jiis  impression  that  they  had  heard  of  his  Gentile  apostleship 
(iii.  2  ff.)  and  had  been  instructed  in  the  true  doctrine  of 
Christ  (iv.  21)  makes  it  impossible  for  the  epistle  to  have 
been  addressed  to  a  Church  founded  by  himself.  In  par- 
ticular we  find  no  allusion  in  it  to  the  special  needs  of  the 
Apostle  or  his  close  relation  to  a  Church  in  which,  as  in 
Ephesus,  he  had  laboured  for  years ;  the  epistle  contains 
no  salutations  to  individuals  in  the  Church  and  sends  no 
greeting  either  from  Timothy  or  Aristarchus,  although  they 
were  with  him  at  that  time  and  had  been  with  him  at 
Ephesus  (Col.  i.  1,  iv.  10,  comp.  Acts  xix.  22,  29).  The 
readers  are  repeatedly  addressed  as  Gentile  Christians 
(Eph.  u.  11  f.,  19,  iii.  1,  iv.  17),  although  Paul  had  also 
laboured  with  success  among  the  Jews  at  Ephesus  (Acts 
xix.  10,  xx.  21),  so  that  the  Church  of  that  place  was 

were  called  ol  6rret  in  an  absolute  sense  on  account  of  their  communion 
with  the  existing  One,  only  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  words 
if  'Eatery  were  not  left  out  in  the  interest  of  this  interpretation,  a 
course  that  was  not  taken  in  Rom.  i.  7  or  Phil.  i.  1  where  the  same 
occasion  offered.  It  has  in  many  cases  been  very  ingeniously  explained 
by  recent  expositors;  but  that  the  Christians  should  here  be  charac- 
terized as  the  N.T.  members  of  the  true  theocracy  in  distinction  from 
the  saints  of  the  old  covenant  cannot  surprise  us  in  an  epistle  that  gives 
such  prominence  to  the  fact  that  the  Gentile-Christians  were  by  their 
very  conversion  led  to  the  true  theocracy  and  made  saints  and  par- 
takers of  its  promises  (ii.  12  f.,  19,  comp.  i.  4,  18,  18).  On  the  other 
hand  the  view  that  Paul  left  a  gap  after  rwt  ofov  or  gave  such  unfilled 
copies  to  the  bearer,  put  forward  by  many  older  expositors  and  shared 
by  Bleek,  is  quite  inconceivable.  How  little  ecclesiastical  antiquity 
thought  of  removing  the  iv  'E^ei?,  because  the  universal  character  of 
the  epistle  did  not  seem  to  suit  the  Church  at  Ephesus,  is  shown  by  tho 
way  in  which  the  Synop.  Script.  Sacr.  and  the  Antiochian  expositors 
get  rid  of  this  difficulty  by  the  ready  assumption  that  Paul  had  not  yet 
boen  in  Ephesus  when  he  wrote  our  epistle.  The  particular  inscription 
in  which  tr  "K.<j>(<r<?  does  not  yet  appear,  was  in  existence  as  early  as 
the  time  of  Tertullian ;  nor  is  it  wanting  in  the  Codd.  that  leave  these 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE  EPHESIANS.  B4l 

undoubtedly  of  a  mixed  character.2  But  since  Tychicus, 
who  went  to  Asia  Minor  with  the  Colossian  Epistle,  carried 
this  one  also  to  its  readers  with  the  very  same  instructions 
(Eph.  vi.  21  f.,  comp.  Col.  iv.  7  f.),  we  can  only  assume 
that  he  was  further  commissioned  to  yisit  the  Churches  of 
Asia  Minor,  for  the  purpose  of  reading  this  epistle  publicly 
to  them  all,  and  of  giving  them  news  respecting  the  welfare 
of  the  Apostle;  an  assumption  not  inconsistent  with  the  very 
general  character  of  the  allusions  to  the  state  of  the  readers, 
as  for  example  in  i.  15.  Whether  the  circle  of  Churches  to 
which  his  commission  applied,  was  more  closely  defined  by 
oral  instructions,  or  extended  over  the  whole  of  Proconsular 
Asia,  we  cannot  indeed  know;  but  it  is  certain  that  Paul 
regarded  them  as  essentially  Gentile- Christian,  and  not 
directly  founded  by  himself.  That  they  belonged  in  the 
main  to  Asia  Minor,  follows  from  the  fact  that  when  the 
Pauline  Epistles  were  afterwards  collected  for  reading  in 
the  Churches  and  an  inscription  sought  that  would  apply  to 
all  the  rest,  the  name  of  the  metropolis  of  Asia  Minor  was 
prefixed ;  and  in  this  way  the  ev  *E<£«ru>  afterwards  got  into 
the  text  also. 

2  Nevertheless  Wurm  (Tubinger  Zeitschrift,  1833),  Binck  (Stud.  u. 
Krit.,  1849,  4),  Wieseler,  Schenkel,  and  above  all  Meyer,  have  adhered 
to  the  view  that  the  epistle  was  specially  intended  for  Ephesus ;  in  which 
case  its  universal  attitude  can  only  be  explained  in  some  very  artificial 
way,  since  other  epistles,  abounding  in  personal  matter  and  references 
to  the  circumstances  of  those  addressed,  were  also  personally  conveyed. 
To  these  untenable  hypotheses  may  be  reckoned  the  view  that  the  epistle 
was  addressed  to  that  portion  of  the  Church  converted  after  the  Apostle's 
departure,  as  Neudecker  maintained  (comp.  also  Kohler) ;  or  to  a  Church 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Ephesus,  only  recently  founded  (Liinemann,  de 
Epist.  quam  Paitlus  ad  Eph.  dedisse  perhibetur  authentia,  Gott.,  1842 ; 
comp.  also  Harless  in  his  Kommentar,  1834).  But  all  these  assumptions 
based  ou  the  hypothesis  that  it  was  designed  for  Ephesus  in  the  first 
place,  but  ultimately  for  wider  distribution,  as  adopted  by  Schrader, 
Schott,  Credner,  Neander,  Thiersch,  Wiggers  (Stud.  u.  Krit,  1841)  and 
many  others,  after  the  example  of  Beza  and  Grotius  (comp.  also  Hof- 
mann,  who  makes  Paul  begin  his  journey  at  Ephesus  and  return  thither), 
are  excluded  by  the  fact  that  they  hardly  remove  the  chief  difficulties. 


342     HYPOTHESIS  OP  ITS  ORIGINAL  DESIGNATION. 

The  hypothesis  that  our  epistle  was  a  circular  letter  intended  for  a 
wider  circle  of  Churches,  was  first  developed  by  James  Ussher  (Annalft 
V.  et  N.  Ti.,  Gen.,  1712) ;  and  since  Eichhorn  and  Bertholdt,  has  in 
recent  times  become  predominant,  though  with  many  modifications. 
But  all  those  hypotheses  which,  whether  retaining  the  tv  "E-Qtay  or  not, 
assume  that  the  epistle  was  designed  for  Ephesns  in  the  first  place  at 
least  (comp.  note  2),  and  identify  it  in  any  way  with  the  epistle  men- 
tioned in  Col.  iv.  16,  must  be  rejected.  That  the  epistle  cannot  have 
been  one  directly  addressed  to  the  LaoJiceans,  as  assumed  by  Mill 
and  Wetstein  after  the  example  of  Marcion,  as  well  as  by  Mangold, 
following  the  precedent  of  many  recent  expositors  (comp.  Eamphausen, 
Jahrb.f.  d.  Theol.,  1866,  4,  and  on  the  assumption  of  its  spuriousnest 
Baur,  Hitzig,  and  Volkmar),  follows  simply  from  the  fact  that  its  des- 
tination  would  in  that  cose  have  been  indicated  in  the  address,  as  in 
all  the  Paulines ;  and  the  substitution  of  tv  'E^o-w  would  remain  in- 
explicable. Even  the  view  which  is  in  itself  possible  that  it  was  the 
circular  letter  to  the  Churches  of  Phrygia  (comp.  Bleek)  or  Asia  Minor 
(comp.  Anger,  tiler  den  Laodieenerbrief,  Lcipz.,  1843  ;  Kiene,  Stud.  u. 
Krit.,  1869,  2;  Klostennann,  Jahrb.  f.  dfutsche  Theol ,  1870,  1;  but 
also  Beuss,  Laurent,  L.  Schulze,  W.  Schmidt  in  Meyer's  Komm.,  5  Aufl., 
1878,  and  Hofmann)  which  the  Colossians  according  to  iv.  16  received 
from  Laodicea,  requires  all  kinds  of  artificial  supplementary  hypotheses; 
for  the  same  Tychicus  who  brought  the  Co'osaian  Epistle  was  to  convey 
this  one  also,  which  according  to  vi.  21  did  not  by  any  means  circulate 
independently;  and  Tychicus  could  hardly  have  made  the  whole  journey 
round  to  Laodicea  with  Ouesimua,  before  taking  the  Colossiau  Epistle 
to  its  address  and  Ouesimus  to  his  place  of  destination.  Such  view  is 
however  excluded  by  the  fact  that  Paul  could  not  have  sent  greeting  to 
the  Laodiceans  in  the  Colofsi.-m  Epistle  (Col.  iv.  15),  if  he  were  also 
writing  them  a  letter  that  was  to  bo  carried  by  the  same  friend.  Against 
the  whole  hypothesis  comp.  Sartori,  iiber  den  Laodicenserbrief,  Lubeck, 
1853. 

2.  After  the  inscription  (i.  1  f.)  the  epistle  bogins  with 
solemn  praise  to  God  who  has  chosen  us  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world  to  spotless  holiness  as  well  as  to  the 
adoption  of  children  (i.  3-5)  and  has  effected  this  salvation 
through  redemption  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  as  also  by  making 
known  the  mystery  of  His  salvation  (i.  6-10),  namely  to 
those  who  through  Christ  have  entered  into  their  expected 
and  predestined  inheritance  in  the  Messiah  (i.  11  f.),  as  well 
as  to  those  to  whom,  on  account  of  their  believing  reception 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE   EPHESIANS.  3-13 

of  a  gospel  of  salvation  that  was  new  to  them,  this  inheritance 
was  sealed  by  the  Spirit  on  the  day  they  received  it  (i.  13  f.).1 
The  usual  thanksgiving  for  the  Christian  state  bestowed 
on  them  in  faith  and  love  (i.  15  f.)  then  follows,  but  imme- 
diately passes  over  into  the  wish  that  the  Spirit  might  give 
them  to  know  the  whole  riches  of  the  hope  of  salvation  im- 
parted to  them  at  their  calling  and  of  the  power  of  God  to 
accomplish  the  same  in  the  saints  (i.  17—19).  Paul  finds  the 
earnest  of  this  partly  in  the  exaltation  of  Christ  to  Divine 
power  and  glory  above  all  heavenly  creatures,  and  His  ap- 
pointment to  be  the  head  of  the  Church  (i.  20-23),  partly  in 
the  merciful  deliverance  and  awakening  from  the  death  of 
sin  to  a  new  life  already  granted  to  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews 
(ii.  1-10).  In  particular  he  reminds  his  Gentile  readers 
that  they  who  had  not,  like  Israel,  a  hope  of  salvation 
founded  in  the  promise,  were  now  admitted  to  full  participa- 
tion in  all  the  blessings  of  the  theocracy,  because  the  ex- 
piatory death  of  Christ  had  removed  the  legal  barrier  that 
separated  them,  and  had  remodelled  the  two  hostile  portions 
of  the  pre-Christian  world  into  a  new  organic  whole  (ii. 
11-19),  which,  resting  on  the  foundation  of  the  apostolic 
announcement  of  Christ,  is  formed  into  a  habitation  of  God 
through  the  Spirit  (ii.  20-22).  The  petition  usually  at- 
tached to  the  thanksgiving  now  rises  to  a  solemn  prayer  for 
Gentile  Christians  offered  up  by  him  as  the  captive  Apostle 

1  This  very  introduction  shows  that  where  the  subjective  realisation 
of  salvation  is  concerned,  chief  stress  is  laid  on  the  knowledge  of  the 
Divine  mystery  of  salvation  (i.  8  f.)  just  as  in  the  Colossian  Epistle ; 
although  i.  13  proves  how  little  the  fundamental  meaning  of  faith  ia 
thereby  prejudiced,  showing  also  that  the  final  purpose  of  the  world  in 
its  relation  to  Christ  appears  as  the  highest  object  of  their  knowledge 
(i.  10) ;  to  which  purpose  the  election  in  Him  before  the  foundation  of 
the  world  corresponds  (i.  3).  The  introduction  also  touches  on  the 
realisation  of  salvation  in  the  two  parts  of  the  pre-Christian  world,  as  ia 
unanswerably  proved  by  the  change  of  ^/teZj  and  v/teij,  as  well  as  by  the 
recurrence  of  the  els  lircuvov  Sofas  O.UTOV  in  i.  12  and  14,  a  realisation 
which,  though  different  in  form,  is  identical  in  substance. 


344  ANALYSIS   OF   THE   EPISTLE. 

of  the  Gentiles,  in  which  capacity  he  now  first  folly  presents 
himself  to  his  readers,  laying  stress  on  the  mystery  of  the 
equal  title  of  the  Gentiles  to  salvation  specially  revealed  to 
him,  and  on  the  carrying  out  of  this  Divine  decree  of  salva- 
tion that  was  his  appointed  task  (iii.  1-13).  This  prayer  has 
to  do  essentially  with  the  completion  of  their  Christian  life, 
treating  mainly  of  the  full  knowledge  of  the  love  of  Christ 
(iii.  14-19),  and  concluding  with  a  full-toned  doxology  (iii. 
20  f.).  The  practical  part  of  the  epistle  begins  with  an 
exhortation  to  make  the  unity  of  the  Church  a  reality,  its 
subjective  and  objective  conditions  being  set  forth  (iv.  1-6)  ; 
and  then  proceeds  to  explain  how  the  very  multiplicity  of 
God's  gifts  of  grace  (iv.  7-11)  serves  solely  for  the  building 
up  of  the  Church  as  the  body  of  Christ  (iv.  12-16).  The 
Gentile  Christians  are  then  reminded  that  Christianity  neces- 
sarily involves  the  laying  aside  of  the  old  and  the  putting 
on  of  the  new  man,  allusion  being  made  to  the  sinfnlness 
of  their  past  life  (iv.  17-24).  The  admonitory  part  now 
opens  out  into  a  varied  series  of  single  exhortations,  culmin- 
ating in  an  admonition  to  love  after  the  example  of  Christ 
(iv.  25-v.  2)  and  in  a  most  impressive  warning  against  all 
fellowship  with  heathen  unchastity,  avarice  and  excess  (T. 
3-20).  From  this  he  passes  on  to  the  natural  conditions  of 
submission,  regulating  the  mutual  obligations  of  husband 
and  wife  (v.  21-23),  of  children  to  parents  (vi.  1-4),  slaves  to 
masters  (vi.  5-9)  ;  finally  admonishing  them  to  true  Christian 
warfare  against  the  powers  of  darkness  (vi.  10-18).  In  con- 
clusion there  follows  a  request  for  their  prayers,  a  reference  to 
Tychicns  for  news  of  his  personal  welfare,  and  a  benediction 
the  fulness  and  comprehensive  form  of  which  indicate  plainly 
enough  the  circular  character  of  the  epistle  (vi.  19-24). 

3.  It  follows  from  the  nature  of  the  subject  thai  an  epistle 
which  was  despatched  with  the  same  messenger  as  the  Colos- 
sian  one,  represents  the  Apostle  as  moving  essentially  in  the 
same  circle  of  thought.  Equal  importance  is  attached  to 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE   EPHESlANS.  345 

knowledge ;  here  however,  as  in  the  Colossian  Epistle,  it  does 
not  consist  in  theosophic  speculations  but  in  the  compre- 
hensive knowledge  of  the  Divine  pnrpose  of  salvation,  of  the 
cosmic  significance  of  Christ  and  the  whole  work  of  salvation,1 
of  the  organic  unity  of  the  Church  under  Christ  its  Head, 
and  the  right  ordering  of  Christian  conduct  in  the  most 
varied  conditions  and  relations  of  common  life.  While  all 
pointed  polemic  is  wanting  in  our  epistle,  it  lays  far  greater 
stress  on  that  which  forms  the  foundation  of  the  Church's 
unity  and  on  what  is  necessary  for  its  preservation ;  and  the 
pervading  allusion  to  the  removal  of  the  pre-Christian  anta- 
gonism by  the  saving  work  of  Christ,  and  the  bringing  of 
the  Gentiles  to  the  salvation  promised  to  Israel  by  means  of 
the  gospel  with  whose  service  he  was  entrusted,  is  peculiarly 
characteristic  of  our  epistle ;  whereas  in  the  Colossian 
one  the  universality  of  this  gospel  is  only  emphasized  in 
very  general  terms  (but  compare  Col.  iii.  11).  Hand  in  hand 
with  this  affinity  of  thought  we  find  a  prevailing  similarity 
of  expression,  while  many  of  the  same  termini  technici  recur 
in  both  epistles  even  apart  from  such  as  serve  for  the  ex- 
pression of  thoughts  in  common,  though  not  without  peculiar 
application  and  modification  in  the  case  of  each.2  Finally, 

1  This  fact  is  not  inconsistent  with  auch  knowledge  having  been 
apprehended  from  different  aspects  in  the  two  epistles.  As  the  cosmic 
significance  of  Christ  is  in  the  Colossian  Epistle  founded  on  his  relation 
to  the  creation  and  preservation  of  the  world,  so  in  the  Ephesian  Epistle 
it  is  founded  on  the  decree  of  election  conceived  in  Him  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  and  determining  creation  itself  (comp.  iii.  9), 
and  in  His  exaltation  above  all  heavenly  powers  (compare  however  Col. 
ii.  10).  While  in  the  former  epistle  the  death  of  Christ  appears  as  a 
victory  over  hostile  powers,  in  the  latter  the  Christian  life  is  depicted 
as  a  constant  wrestling  with  these  powers ;  as  in  the  former  the  true  life 
of  the  Christian  is  already  in  heaven  in  consequence  of  death  with  Christ, 
BO  here  he  who  is  raised  from  the  death  of  sin  in  communion  of  life  with 
Christ,  is  already  translated  to  heaven  with  Christ  (Eph.  ii.  6  f.).  Eph. 
v.  2  also  echoes  the  typical  conception  of  the  0.  T.  law,  and  forms  the 
background  to  Eph.  ii.  11. 

*  Compare  the  meaning  attached  to  lirlyvuffit  and  ao<pla.,  as  well  aa  to 


346    RELATION  OP  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  COLOSSIAN  ONE. 

throughout  the  whole  epistle  are  to  be  found  reminiscences 
of  detached  passages  of  the  Colossian  Epistle,  in  many  cases 
due  to  the  similarity  of  the  subject  treated,  though  frequently 
employed  in  quite  a  different  connection,  showing,  moreover, 
a  very  unequal  degree  of  verbal  conformity,  and  often  only 
giving  a  new  and  free  application  to  the  expression  employed 
in  the  parallel  passage. 

In  the  praise-giving  introduction  we  already  find  (i.  7)  redemption  in 
Christ  through  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  from  Col.  i.  14,  in  the  thanks- 
giving a  similar  mention  of  wlcms  iv  Xp.  and  of  love  to  all  the  saints 
(i.  15,  comp.  Col.  i.  4),  the  evidence  of  the  Divine  Ivtpytia,  in  the  raising 
up  of  Christ  (i.  19,  oomp.  Col.  ii.  12),  the  awakening  from  a  death  of  sin 
to  life  with  Christ  (ii.  1,  6,  oomp.  Col.  ii.  13) ;  while  the  thoughts  of  Col. 
i.  20-22  only  occur  in  very  different  colouring  in  Eph.  ii.  15  f.  In  both 
epistlea  Paul  represents  himself  as  the  minister  of  the  gospel  in  con- 
formity with  a  special  Divine  olKovouta  (in.  2,  7,  oomp.  Col.  i.  23,  25), 
according  to  which  the  mystery  hid  from  the  ages  is  now  revealed  to  the 
saints  (iii.  5,  10,  comp.  Col.  i.  26).  These  reminiscences  multiply  in  the 
practical  part,  where  the  admonitions  contained  in  Col.  iii.  12  f.  appear 
separately  in  iv.  2  and  32 ;  where  the  dydKij  is  connected  with  the 
flprirri  (in  a  characteristically  different  way)  and  with  the  vocation,  as 
also  with  the  organic  unity  of  the  Church  (iv.  1-4,  comp.  Col.  iii.  14  f.), 
whose  restoration  and  growth  in  Christ  as  the  Head  is  carried  out  in  a 
like  figure  (iv.  15  f.,  comp.  Col.  ii.  19) ;  where  the  new  man  is  said  to  be 
created  after  God  or  His  image  (iv.  24,  oomp.  Col.  iii.  10),  and  a  similar 
warning  is  given  against  lying  and  anger  in  their  different  manifestations 
(iv.  25, 31,  comp.  Col.  iii.  8  f.),  as  well  as  against  the  heathen  sins  of 
unchastity,  uncleanness  and  covetousness  characterized  as  idolatry,  that 
draw  down  the  wrath  of  God  (v.  3,  5  f.,  oomp.  Col.  iii.  5  f.).  Finally 

ffvvffftt  and  nwrr-fipw  in  the  two  epistles,  also  the  various  connections  in 
which  mention  is  made  of  the  rX^/w^a  and  of  the  rXoOrot  TTJI  56^1.  In 
both  are  emphasized  the  sitting  of  Christ  at  the  right  band  of  God  and 
His  position  as  Kt<t>a.\i)  TOU  ewpaTot,  the  enumeration  of  the  manifold 
orders  of  heavenly  powers  as  the  ^{oiw/a  rou  ffxorovi,  the  <iiro«waAd<r<r«ti' 
and  draXXorptoOirfcu,  and  the  tlpi\vif»  irott'r  by  the  cross ;  also  the  old  and 
the  new  man,  the  distinction  of  a  re/xro/xj)  xeiporolifrot  and  dx«v>o»-o(iprof , 
the  mention  of  the  SJyfULra.  of  the  law,  the  dyios  ical  A/iw/xor,  the  d£<wj 
•jrtpnraTfiy  and  the  use  of  the  figure  of  the  vuvtiffffjios ;  compare  the  \6yot 
tr  \&(AT^  Col.  iv.  6,  with  the  \6yot,  the  x^-P1"  '''•  T0'»  (Uotfowu',  Eph.  iv. 
29  (comp.  atffxpo\oyta,  Col.  iii.  8,  with  al<rxp&ri}t  ^  f*.upo\ayia,  Eph.  v.  4), 
the  suffering  vrlp  r&v  lOv&r,  etc.,  etc. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE  EPHESIANS.  347 

the  redeeming  of  the  time  as  a  mark  of  true  wisdom  in  intercourse  with 
non-Christians  (Col.  iv.  5)  recurs  in  v.  15  f.,  and  Christian  fulness 
of  song  in  connection  with  thanksgiving  to  God  and  with  the  name  of 
Christ  (Col.  iii.  16)  in  v.  19  f.  The  Christian  table  of  domestic  duties  is 
parallel  throughout  (v.  22- vi.  9,  comp.  Col.  iii.  18-iv.  1),  so  too  is  the 
exhortation  to  prayer,  as  to  intercession  for  the  Apostle  (vi.  18  f.,  comp.. 
Col.  iv.  2  f.) ;  while  the  announcement  of  Tychicus  is  identical  in  its 
whole  wording  (vi.  21  f.,  comp.  with  Col.  iv.  7  f.). 

The  question  as  to  which  of  these  two  letters  that  were 
despatched  simultaneously  was  first  written,  is  quite  imma- 
terial. The  determining  motive  with  those  who  adopted  the 
view  that  the  Ephesian  Epistle  was  written  first,  for  example 
Eichhorn,  Hng,  Credner,  Reuss,  Ghiericke,  Anger  and  others, 
was  mainly  that  it  is  already  mentioned  in  Col.  iv.  16,  which 
has  been  at  length  explicitly  stated  by  W.  Schmidt.  All 
arguments  drawn  from  the  relation  of  the  parallel  passages 
(comp.  Hofmann)  are  lacking  in  power  of  demonstration 
when  once  the  epistles  are  ascribed  to  the  same  author.  The 
fact  that  Tychicus  travelled  first  to  Golosse  as  was  natural, 
in  order  to  deliver  up  Onesimus  and  the  special  letter,  after- 
wards setting  out  on  the  circuit  with  the  other  letter,  does 
not  in  itself  prove  that  the  former  was  also  written  first;  but 
the  simplest  explanation  of  the  K<H  fytets  in  Eph.  vi.  21,  though 
not  a  cogent  proof,  is  to  be  found  in  the  involuntary  allusion 
to  the  charge  also  given  to  Tychicus  for  Colosse  (iv.  7), 
against  which  the  /ecu  in  Col.  iii.  8  manifestly  proves  nothing. 
In  any  case  it  is  most  natural  to  suppose  that  the  epistle 
designed  for  concrete  needs  was  written  first  (comp.  Wiggers, 
Harless,  Neander,  Bleek,  Meyer,  Schenkel)  ;  wider  and  freer 
expression  being  then  given  by  the  Apostle  in  a  letter  of 
more  general  character  to  the  thoughts  by  which  he  was 
stirred.  The  parallels  of  the  Ephesian  Epistle  show,  with 
few  exceptions,  a  greater  wealth  of  expression  and  a  more 
detailed  development  of  thought,  as  is  clearly  shown  in  the 
table  of  domestic  duties.  Comp.  v.  Bemmelen,  de  Epp.  ad 
Eph.  et  Coll.  inter  se  coll.,  Lugd.  Bat.,  1803. 


348  OLDER  CRITICISM  OP  THE   EPISTLE. 

4.  De  Wette  and  Ewald  in  particular  who,  following 
Schleiermacher,  have  denied  the  authorship  of  the  Ephesian 
letter  to  the  Apostle  and  ascribed  it  to  one  of  his  disciples. 
But  the  striking  incongruity  justly  discovered  between  the 
general  character  of  the  contents  of  the  epistle  and  its  par- 
ticular address  disappears  of  itself,  since  the  latter  has  been 
shown  to  be  spurious  (note  1),  and  would  remain  just  as 
striking  if  the  pseudonymous  author  had  chosen  an  address, 
which,  after  the  Apostle's  well-known  relation  to  Ephesus, 
would  necessarily  have  given  offence.  Still  greater  offence 
was  given  by  the  peculiar  relation  of  this  epistle  to  the 
Colossian  one,  although  the  joint  despatch  of  the  two 
epistles,  that  was  unexampled,  naturally  led  to  the  affinity 
actually  existing,  though  often  exaggerated  and  erroneously 
understood.1  Nevertheless  the  relation  to  the  Colossian 
Epistle  remains  a  decisive  test  for  the  criticism  of  the 
Ephesian  one,  for  however  able  and  independent  the  imi- 
tation of  which  it  consists,  the  dependence  of  the  latter 
would  necessarily  betray  itself  in  unmistakable  signs.  That 
this  is  not  the  case  is  abundantly  shown  by  the  history  of 
criticism.  After  Mayerhoff,  by  a  detailed  comparison  of  the 
parallels,  had  endeavoured  to  prove  the  dependence  of  the 
Colossian  Epistle  throughout,  Honig  (Zeitschr.  fur  wiss. 


1  The  faot  that  the  Roman  Epistle,  written  more  than  three  years  after 
that  to  the  Oalatians,  presents  the  most  striking  parallels  with  it  (iii.  20, 
corap.  Gal.  ii.  16 ;  iv.  8,  comp.  Gal.  iii.  6;  i.  17,  comp.  Gal.  iii.  11 ;  x.  5, 
comp.  Gal.  iii.  12 ;  iv.  14,  comp.  Gal.  iii.  18  ;  viii.  15,  17,  comp.  Gal.  iv. 
6  f. ;  viii.  14,  ri.  14,  comp.  Gal.  v.  18)  has  been  generally  overlooked.  On 
the  other  hand  there  is  little  probability  that  one  who  desired  to  write  in 
the  name  of  Paul,  and  was  in  many  respects  able  to  imitate  the  Pauline 
mode  of  teaching  and  expression  so  well,  even  when  writing  indepen- 
dently, should  by  the  fiction  contained  in  vi.  21  f.,  have  created  the 
possibility  of  so  close  a  relation  to  the  Colossian  Epistle,  although  it 
offered  most  imperfect  points  of  connection  (or  the  greater  and  more 
important  part  of  what  he  had  to  say,  especially  as  such  attachment 
would  be  more  likely  to  give  offence  than  to  lend  the  appearance  of 
genuineness  to  his  composition. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS.  349 

Theol.,  1872,  1),  following  in  the  footsteps  of  de  "Wette, 
thought  he  coald  succeed  in  proving  the  very  same  thing 
of  the  Ephesian  Epistle.  It  was  on  the  observation  of  the 
signs  of  dependence  and  originality  running  through  both 
that  Holtzmann  based  his  attempt  to  explain  the  Ephesian 
Epistle  as  a  copy  of  the  genuine  Colossian  one,  and  to  ascribe 
the  interpolations  of  the  latter  to  the  Autor  ad  Ephesios 
(§  24,  6)  ;  although  in  these  at  least  we  have  not  a  copy  but 
an  expansion  from  the  same  hand,  viz.  the  very  same  pro- 
blem presented  by  the  two  epistles  on  the  supposition  of 
their  genuineness.  Hence,  v.  So  den  found  it  an  easy  task 
to  prove  that  in  none  of  these  passages  could  there  be  any 
thought  of  a  dependence  on  the  part  of  the  Colossian  Epistle 
(comp.  §  24,  6).2  That  the  epistle  in  its  doctrine  and  expres- 
sion contains  much  that  is  peculiar  as  compared  with  the 
older  Paulines,  is  incontestable ;  but  if  once  the  Colossian 
Epistle  be  regarded  as  genuine,  an  advance  of  Paulinism  in 
both  these  respects  must  be  conceded ;  which  explains  the 
Ephesian  Epistle  just  as  well  as  the  Colossian  one.  Besides 
that  which  is  common  to  both,  each  has  something  peculiar 
to  itself  (comp.  esp.  Holtzmann  in  his  Einl.),  like  every 
Pauline  epistle  :  and  the  fact  that  the  Ephesian  Epistle, 
which  contains  no  manner  of  polemic  or  argumentation, 
but  in  its  doctrinal  part  is  an  outpouring  of  the  Apostle 
respecting  the  glory  of  the  work  of  redemption  clothed  in 
the  form  of  thanksgiving  and  intercession,  and  in  its  admoni- 


2  But  it  is  just  as  easy  for  the  very  same  reasons  to  prove  in  opposi- 
tion to  him  that  the  alleged  signs  of  dependence  on  the  part  of  the 
Ephesian  Epistle  likewise  disappear  on  a  more  impartial  exegesis.  The 
most  careful  examination  of  the  parallel  passages  invariably  leads  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  appearance  of  dependence,  found  sometimes  in  one 
and  sometimes  in  the  other,  is  nothing  but  appearance,  and  is  dispelled 
by  a  more  careful  estimate  of  the  connection  and  aim  of  each  individual 
parallel ;  as  also  that  the  peculiar  relation  of  affinity  between  the  two 
epistles  is  explicable  only  on  the  assumption  that  they  are  both  indepen- 
dent but  contemporaneous  compositions  of  the  same  author. 


350  TUBINGEN  CRITICISM  OP  THE   LETTER. 

tory  part  a  general  discussion  of  morals  without  direct 
reference  to  definite  needs,  is  distinguished  from  the  older 
Paulines  by  the  breadth,  freshness  and  spontaneity  of  its 
delineation,  is  the  less  striking,  since  the  Colossian  Epistle 
forms  the  connecting  link  between  it  and  them  in  this 
respect  (against  de  Wette  compare  also  Liinemann,  de  Ep. 
qnam  Paulus  ad  Eph.  tied,  perk.,  Gott.,  1842). 

5.  The  Tubingen  criticism,  this  time  led  by  Schwegler  in  the 
Theolog.  Jahrb.  (1844),  and  carried  on  in  the  same  periodical 
by  Plank  and  Kostlin  (1847,  1850),  was  apparently  in  a  far 
more  favourable  position,  inasmuch  as  it  put  both  epistles 
together  into  the  Gnostic  movement  of  the  time,  and  accord- 
ingly gave  a  Gnostic  interpretation  to  the  strong  emphasis 
laid  on  the  yvoxrts  and  <ro<£t'a,  the  antithesis  of  light  and 
darkness,  as  well  as  the  conceptions  of  pwrrypiov  and  TrX^pw/xa ; 
finding  a  Gnostic  syzygy  in  Christ's  relation  to  the  Church, 
and  in  the  aioWs,  the  Gnostic  aaons,  of  which  the  iroXwoiKi- 
Aos  cro(f>ia.  was  said  even  to  point  to  the  fantastic  changes 
of  the  Valentinian  »on.  Baur  also  discovered  echoes  of 
Montanism  on  which  Schwegler  laid  special  stress ;  as  for 
example  the  prominence  given  to  the  irvevna  as  the  Mon- 
tanist  Paraclete  and  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  the  union  of 
prophets  with  apostles,  the  insistence  on  the  holiness  of  the 
Church  and  the  division  of  its  life  into  epochs,  as  well  as 
the  comparison  of  its  relation  to  Christ  with  the  marriage- 
relation,  and  such  like.1  The  proper  aim  of  the  epistle 
seemed  to  be  to  bring  the  two  parties  in  the  Church,  viz. 
the  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians  who  were  still  separated, 
into  the  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church ;  which  was  attempted 
by  an  external  synthesis  of  faith  and  love,  by  modifying  the 

1  It  is  obvious  that  here  the  simplest  apostolic  representations  and 
chains  of  thought  are  conceived  in  the  light  of  a  later  time  which  is 
altogether  foreign  to  them,  in  order  by  arguing  in  a  circle  to  prove  that 
the  epistle  belonged  to  this  time ;  on  which  account  it  is  possible  for  the 
relation  of  Christ  to  the  Church  or  the  passage  iv.  7-1 1  to  be  interpreted 
Gtiostically  by  one  and  Montanistically  by  others. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE   EPHESIANS.  351 

Paulino  thesis  of  justification  and  making  concessions  to 
Judaism  with  its  righteousness  of  works,  and  by  an  external 
union  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  through  the  abolition  of  the  law, 
i.e.  essentially  of  circumcision.2  The  standpoint  of  the  Tii- 
bingen  school  is  adhered  to  by  Hilgenfeld,  who  ascribes  our 
epistle  to  an  Asiatic  Pauline  disciple  of  the  Gnostic  time 
and  holds  that  it  is  a  free  revision  of  the  Colossian  Epistle, 
written  about  140  (comp.  Volkmar  and  Hausrath).  Pflei- 
derer  too  lays  strong  emphasis  on  the  fact  that  the  Ephesian 
Epistle  represents  a  phase  of  advanced  Paulinism  essentially 
distinct  from  that  of  the  Colossian  Epistle,  tending  in  the 
direction  of  the  Johannine  theology ;  and  maintains  that 
it  was  written  by  a  Jewish  Christian  who  aimed  at  media- 
ting all  party-antagonisms  in  the  universal  Church,  in  op- 
position to  practical  libertinism  and  dogmatic  hyper- Paulin- 
ism, whose  speculations  abandoned  the  ground  of  sound 
-morality  and  historical  Christianity  and  perhaps  directly 
tended  to  separation  from  the  Jewish  Christian  portion  of 
the  Church.  On  the  other  hand  Holtzman,  whom  Mangold 
is  disposed  to  follow,  has  again  gone  back  to  the  close  of  the 
first  and  beginning  of  the  second  centuries,  thus  withdraw- 
ing the  epistle  entirely  from  the  time  of  the  Gnostic  move- 
ment, and  making  the  Autor  ad  Ephesios  once  more  an  im- 
mediate disciple  of  the  Apostle.  But  this  does  away  with 


*  It  is  just  as  clear  that  a  one-sided  conception  of  older  Paulinism  as 
well  as  a  misapprehension  of  the  historical  motive  which  effected  its  ad- 
vancement even  on  the  side  of  fundamental  ethics,  lies  at  the  founda- 
tion of  this  view.  While  Baur  was  inclined  to  ascribe  both  epistles 
to  one  author  who  reserved  all  polemic  and  individual  matter  for  the 
Golossian  Epistle  but  expanded  its  contents  in  the  larger  one,  whereas 
Schwegler  looked  upon  the  Ephesian  Epistle  as  a  remodelling  of  the 
Golossian  one  from  a  more  developed  dogmatic  standpoint  and  under 
more  developed  ecclesiastical  relations,  the  Tubingen  criticism  did  not 
even  arrive  at  a  certain  solution  of  the  relationship  between  the  two ; 
with  which  the  older  criticism  was  so  prominently  occupied  (comp. 
against  this  criticism  Klopper,  de  Or  10,  Epp.  ad  Eph.  et  Col.,  Gryph., 
1852). 


352  LATER  CRITICISM  OF  THE   EPISTLE. 

every  certain  rule  by  which  to  determine  whether  the  rela- 
tions that  brought  about  this  development  of  Paulinism 
were  not  already  present  in  the  Pauline  time  and  effected 
in  the  person  of  Paul  himself.8 

6.  Even  assuming  the  genuineness  of  the  Ephesian  Epistle, 
no  satisfactory  explanation  has  been  given  of  its  historical 
occasion  ;  indeed  it  has  been  hardly  attempted.  The  spread 
of  Jewish-Christian  theosophy  beyond  the  circle  of  the 
Phrygian  Churches  cannot  be  proved;  and  the  complete 
absence  of  all  polemic  and  warning  against  it  forbids  the 
assumption  that  the  epistle  was  intended  to  obviate  such 
danger.  Hence,  as  de  Wette  already  perceived,  the  true 
leading  motive  of  the  epistle  still  consists  in  an  exhortation 
to  church-unity.  This  forms  the  starting-point  and  climax 
of  the  practical  part ;  and  to  it  the  doctrinal  part  evidently 
leads  up,  inasmuch  as  it  always  goes  back  to  the  removal 
of  the  pre-Christian  antagonism  in  the  Church.1  But 

*  Mangold  lays  the  principal  stress  on  iii.  6  f.  where  the  holy  apostles 
and  prophets  are  mentioned,  and  full  insight  into  the  equal  privileges  of 
the  Gentiles  and  Jews  is  said  to  be  ascribed  to  the  primitive  apostles.  A 
much  more  significant  mark  of  a  later  time  would  be  iv.  11,  if  the  leaders 
of  the  Church  were  here  designated  at  the  same  time  as  teachers.  But 
either  those  working  in  the  separate  Churches  are  here  comprehended 
tinder  one  category  as  contrasted  with  the  gift  bearers  given  for  the 
benefit  of  the  whole  Church,  or  the  image  of  the  voin^vet  does  not  indi- 
cate, as  in  Acts  xx.  28 ;  1  Pet.  v.  2,  the  rulers  of  the  Church,  but  Church- 
pastors  in  a  spiritual  sense  (comp.  John  x.  9  f.). 

1  The  older  introduction-writers,  as  Michaelis,  Hanlein,  Schott,  and 
Neudecker,  speak,  it  is  true,  of  Ephesian  errorists  also,  but  iv.  14  ia 
sufficiently  explained  by  the  experiences  Paul  had  just  made  in  the 
Phrygian  Churches  ;  and  v.  6  refers  to  moral  seduction.  But  when  the 
hypothesis  of  the  spurious  character  of  the  epistle  is  made  to  rest  upon 
the  union-tendency  that  makes  it  refer  to  a  post-apostolic  age,  the  fact 
that  no  trace  of  any  parties  representing  different  conceptions  of  Christian 
truth  appears  in  our  epistle  is  overlooked,  as  also  that  the  abrogation  of 
the  law  as  a  rule  of  salvation  and  life  (ii.  15)  is  truly  Pauline ;  while  the 
pervading  demand  for  moral  attestation  of  the  Christian  state  is  no 
concession  to  Jewish  righteousness  of  works ;  whereas  the  unity  here 
required  is  not  based  on  concessions  that  one  party  was  to  make  to  the 
other,  but  on  the  consideration  as  to  how  the  Gentiles  were  to  be  actually 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE  EPHESIANS.  353 

since  the  epistle  pre-supposes  Gentile-Christian  readers 
tliroTighout,  such  exhortation,  though  manifestly  based  on 
the  assumption  of  a  distinction  between  Gentile  and  Jewish 
Christian  Churches  or  members  of  Churches,  is  wanting  in 
all  historical  motive,  so  long  as  we  adhere  to  the  view  that 
the  Christianizing  of  Asia  Minor  is  attributable  solely  to 
Paul,  and  therefore  that  the  Churches  of  that  district  were 
essentially  Gentile- Christian.  But  just  as  we  have  already 
shown  that  the  disturbances  in  Galatia  could  only  be  ac- 
counted for  on  the  assumption  that  Jewish- Christian,  primi- 
tive-apostolic Church-foundations  had  existed  there  from 
early  times  (§  18,  1),  so  too  the  Ephesian  Epistle  can  only 
be  understood  if  we  remember  that,  according  to  1  Peter 
i.  1,  such  foundations  must  also  have  been  present  in  the 
Churches  of  pro-consular  Asia  to  which  it  was  addressed 
(§  15,  2,  comp.  also  §  35,  2).  The  Phrygian  disturbances 
had  again  reminded  the  Apostle  how  readily  the  old  anta- 
gonism which  he  had  overcome  in  his  legally-minded  Phari- 
saic opponents  might  spring  up  again  in  a  new  form  (§  24, 
3)  ;  hence  it  occurred  to  him  to  show  that  it  might  be  got 
rid  of  by  admitting  the  Gentiles  to  the  possession  of  the 
salvation  and  the  promises  of  free  Israel,  and  must  neces- 
sarily be  dissipated  on  the  part  of  the  Gentiles  by  the  lay- 
ing aside  of  all  heathen  practices  and  the  regulation  of 
the  whole  moral  life  in  a  Christian  spirit  which  makes  all 
legal  or  ascetic  restrictions  superfluous.  The  similarity  the 
Ephesian  Epistle  bears  to  the  Roman  one  in  this  respect 
is  obvious.  In  both  Paul  turns  as  the  Gentile  apostle  to 
Gentile- Christian  Churches  which  he  himself  had  not  directly 
founded  ;  in  both  his  argument  is  called  forth  not  by  errors 
present  in  the  Churches,  but  by  the  experiences  he  had  i  \ade 
in  the  struggle  with  a  Jewish-Christian  antagonism  (as 

received  into  community  of  salvation  with  Israel,  and  thereby  all  anta- 
gonism threatening  the  unity  of  the  Church  and  arising  out  of  its  pre- 
Christian  past,  be  removed. 

A  A 


354  MODERN    CRITICISM   OF   THE   EPISTLB. 

formerly  with  legal  Pharisaism,  so  now  with  theosophic 
asceticism)  ;  in  both  Christianity  is  set  forth  as  the  religion 
of  the  world  that  would  remove  the  pre-Christian  anta- 
gonism while  fully  recognising  Israel's  historical  prerogative 
of  salvation  and  the  abiding  typical  significance  of  the  law, 
on  which  he  now  for  the  first  time  lays  greater  stress. 
Here,  where  the  Jewish  Christianity  against  which  he  had 
to  contend  in  Phrygia  no  longer  went  back  to  the  Scriptures, 
Paul  thought  it  unnecessary  to  bring  forward  Scripture 
proof  on  his  side.  And  if  the  final  aim  of  the  Roman  Epistle 
lay  in  the  importance  that  Paul  attached  to  the  Church  of 
Rome  as  the  metropolis  of  Gentile  Christianity,  it  consisted 
in  the  Ephesian  Epistle  in  the  distinction  still  present  in 
Asia  Minor,  between  the  Pauline-Gentile-Christian  and 
primitive -apostolic -Jewish -Christian  Church  -  foundations. 
Under  these  circumstances  it  will  not  appear  strange  that 
the  highly-esteemed  Petrine  Epistle  current  in  the  Jewish- 
Christian  Churches  of  Asia  Minor,  and  with  which  according 
to  §  23,  6  the  Apostle  was  acquainted,  should  have  been 
constantly  in  his  mind  in  writing  this  epistle,  or  even  that 
he  should  have  designedly  followed  it  in  many  respects;  a 
fact  which  would  also  explain  a  reference  to  the  other 
apostles  (iii.  5,  comp.  No.  5,  note  3). 

The  relation  of  affinity  between  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter  and  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  was  very  early  perceived,  and  cannot  be  weak- 
ened by  the  fact  that  occasional  echoes  of  the  former  are  also  found  in 
the  Colossian  Epistle  which  was  written  contemporaneously  with  that  to 
the  EpbcHians,  and  during  whose  composition  therefore  he  was  equally 
well  acquainted  with  it.  Holtzman  has  certainly  attempted  by  a  detailed 
comparison  of  parallels  to  establish  tbe  priority  of  the  Ephesian  Epistle, 
formerly  accepted  as  self-evident ;  but  Ewald,  Schwegler,  Hilgenfeld 
(comp.  Zeittchr.f.  w.  Theol.,  1873,  4),  Pfleiderer  and  Hdnig  have  ac- 
knowledged the  priority  of  Peter's  epistle,  maintaining  however  that  the 
Ephesian  one  is  spurious.  It  is  a  fact  that  the  Ephosian  Epistle  is  tbe 
only  one  among  the  Paulines  tbat,  like  1  Peter,  has  the.  form  of  a  circular 
letter;  just  as  it  is  the  only  one  that  like  it  begins  by  praising  God  (in 
a  form  quite  similar)  for  the  blessings  of  salvation  bestowed  in  Christ, 


TBJ1   EPISTLE   TO   THE   EPHESIANS.  355 

though  afterwards  returning  to  the  Pauline  manner  of  thanksgiving 
(i.  15  ff.).  In  it  the  exhortation  enters  into  the  special  regulation  of 
domestic  life  with  its  duties  and  obligations  as  in  Peter's  epistle,  and  like 
it  concludes  with  an  exhortation  to  wage  war  against  the  StdjSoXos  (a  term 
that  Paul  nowhere  else  applies  to  the  devil :  1  Pet.  v.  8  f.,  cornp.  Eph.  vi. 
11-18) ;  and  even  the  unique  elp-ffv^  rois  dSe\(f>o'is  in  the  final  benediction 
(vi.  23)  recalls  1  Pet.  v.  14.  To  this  may  be  added  a  number  of  striking 
detached  reminiscences  running  through  the  whole  epistle.2  That  an 
intentional  dependence  of  this  kind  on  an  older  apostolic  writing,  calcu- 
lated to  show  the  Jewish  Christians  of  Asia  Minor  that  the  Gentile 
Christians  were  instructed  in  the  same  truth  with  themselves,  did  not 
prejudice  the  originality  and  wealth  of  the  Pauline  intellect,  is  clear 
enough,  even  though  the  traditional  view  cannot  become  reconciled  to 
it,  while  critics  like  Holtzmau  reject  it  as  ''sheer  nonsense."  Coinp. 
Weiss,  Petr.  Lehrbrgr.,  Berlin,  1855,  V.,  5. 

7.  The  time  of  the  captivity  in  Csesarea  during  which  the 
three  epistles  to  Asia  Minor  were  written,  cannot  be  deter- 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  introductory  praise  begins  with  the  election 
to  holiness  founded  iu  Christ  before  the  world  (i.  4),  while  the  Epistle  of 
Peter  (i.  2)  addresses  itself  to  the  fK\fKTol  ei>  ayia<r/j.$,  making  use  of  the 
same  expression,  one  that  occurs  nowhere  else  in  Paul,  and  speaks  of 
Christ  in  i.  20  as  having  been  foreordained  irpb  KarajSoX^j  KO<T/J.OV.  The 
Lope  of  the  K\i)poi>o/j.la,  for  whose  attainment  the  readers  are  referred  to 
the  power  of  God  (i.  19  f .)  reminds  us  of  1  Pet.  i.  3-5 ;  the  union  of  the 
resurrection  and  ascension  with  the  subjection  of  all  the  heavenly  powers 
(i.  20  ff.)  recalls  1  Pet.  iii.  22  ;  while  the  description  of  the  pre-Christian 
walk  of  the  Jews  (ii.  3)  puts  us  in  mind  of  1  Pet.  i.  11  f.,  especially  as  the 
desires  here  referred  to  (ii.  11)  are  called  aa.pKiKa.1.  Only  in  our  epistle  is 
there  any  mention  of  wpoo-ayuyr)  to  God  (ii.  18,  comp.  1  Pet.  iii.  18) ;  here 
alone  is  Christ  called  the  corner-stone  (ii.  20)  in  accordance  with  an  image 
drawn  by  Peter  (ii.  6  f.)  from  the  Old  Testament.  The  consideration  of 
prophecy  from  the  standpoint  of  fulfilment  (iii.  5)  is  based  entirely  on  the 
view  developed  in  1  Pet.  i.  10-12,  where  mention  is  also  made,  as  in  iii. 
10,  of  the  contemplative  participation  of  angels  in  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion ;  even  the  characterization  of  all  gifts  as  designed  ds  tpyov  SiaKovias 
(iv.  12)  reminds  m  more  of  1  Pet.  iv.  10,  than  of  similar  Pauline  sayings. 
It  is  remarkable  enough  that  here  only  are  woi^fes  specified  among  the 
bearers  of  gifts  (iv.  11,  comp.  1  Pet.  v.  2).  With  the  eSffTr\ayx"os  in  iv.  38, 
that  occurs  here  only,  compare  1  Pet.  iii.  8  ;  with  the  wider  conception, 
of  the  el§(a\o\a.Tpeia.  in  v.  5  comp.  1  Pet.  iv.  3.  Domestic  duties  are  re- 
garded in  the  light  of  the  viroTa.<r<r6iu.evoi  a'XXijXois,  just  as  in  Peter  (v.  21, 
comp.  1  Pet.  ii.  18;  iii.  1;  v.  5),  and  the  iv  <j>Jfiv  'Kpia-rov  (comp.  also 
vi.  5)  recalls  1  Pet.  ii.  18 ;  iii.  2  (comp.  the  Idiots  dvdpd<ru>  v.  22  with  1  Pet. 
iii.  1,  5). 


356         COMMENCEMENT  OP  P.   FESTUS'S  OFFICB. 

mined,  but  the  confidence  expressed  by  the  Apostle  (Philem. 
v.  22)  points  to  a  comparatively  early  time,  before  it  had 
become  evident  that  the  procurator  was  delaying  his  case  on 
the  ground  of  hopes  which  Paul  could  not  fulfil.  At  last, 
when  Felix  was  recalled  and  Porcius  Festus  took  his  place,  a 
decision  seemed  imminent  (Acts  xxiv.  27)  j1  but  when  Festus 
presented  himself  at  Jerusalem  immediately  after  entering 
upon  his  office,  the  hierarchs  besieged  him  with  entreaties  to 
give  Paul  back  to  them  as  his  lawful  judges ;  wherefore  he 
summoned  them  to  Csesarea.  When,  however,  the  negotia- 
tions there  having  led  to  no  result,  the  prefect  tried  to  per- 
suade the  Apostle  to  appear  before  his  judges  at  Jerusalem, 
Paul  found  himself  compelled  to  appeal  to  the  Emperor ;  and 
after  taking  counsel  with  his  lawyers,  Festus  accepted  the 
appeal  (xxv.  1-12).  But  since  he  had  to  give  the  Emperor 
an  account  of  the  prisoner  sent  up  to  him  for  trial,  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  advice  in  this  matter  to  which  he  was 
himself  a  stranger,  he  turned  to  King  Agrippa,  who  with  his 
sister  Berenice  was  at  that  very  time  waiting  upon  the  now 
procurator  in  Cnesarea.  At  Agrippa's  desire  the  Apostle 
once  more  defended  himself  before  him,  after  which  Agrippa 
declared  that  if  Paul  had  not  appealed,  there  would  have 
l>een  nothing  to  prevent  his  being  set  free  (xxv.  13-xxvi.  32). 

1  We  cannot  determine  the  chronological  date  of  this  entrance  of  Fes- 
tus into  office  with  sufficient  accuracy  to  make  it  a  guide  for  the  life  of 
Paul.  It  is  certain  that  Felix  on  his  arrival  in  Borne  only  escaped  being 
accused  by  the  Jews  through  the  intercession  of  his  brother  Pallas,  who 
was  poisoned  by  Nero  in  62.  Festus  therefore  cannot  have  entered  upon 
his  office  later  than  the  year  61,  and  it  must  have  been  in  the  summer 
since  Paul  began  his  sea  journey  in  the  same  autumn,  so  that  according 
to  the  usual  computation  which  puts  his  arrest  at  or  about  Whitsuntide 
of  the  year  59,  just  two  years  remain  for  bis  imprisonment  under  Felix. 
But  Winer,  Anger,  Wieseler  and  Schiirer  are  for  the  year  60,  which  only 
affords  fresh  illustration  of  the  uncertainty  of  the  whole  previous  chron- 
ology. None  of  the  reasons  alleged  for  deciding  between  these  two 
years  has  any  decisive  significance ;  while  some  have  even  wished  to  go 
beyond  the  year  60  (comp.  Lehmann  and  Laurent  in  the  Stud.  u.  A'nt., 
1858,2;  1864,8). 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE  EPHESIANS.  357 

At  the  next  opportunity  of  embarking,  the  Apostle  was 
therefore  assigned  to  a  transport  with  other  prisoners,  under 
the  command  of  a  centurion  named  Julius.  Aristarchus  and 
Lucas  were  permitted  to  accompany  him.  But  the  ship  of 
Adramyttium  on  which  they  had  embarked,  only  went  as  far 
as  Myra  in  Lycia,  where  they  entered  an  Alexandrian  vessel 
that  was  intended  for  carrying  wheat  to  Italy.  Owing  to 
contrary  winds  much  time  was  lost ;  and  they  were  obliged 
to  decide  on  wintering  in  Crete.  But  when  the  people  of 
the  ship,  hoping  to  find  a  better  harbour  than  that  into 
which  they  had  first  put  again  ventured  out,  they  were 
overtaken  by  a  storm  and  cast  into  the  open  sea.  For  four- 
teen days  they  were  tossed  on  the  Adriatic  in  the  greatest 
peril,  until  the  ship  stranded  at  Malta.  The  whole  crew 
was  saved  (Acts  xxvii.,  comp.  James  Smith,  The  Voyage  and 
Shipwreck  of  St.  Paul,  2nd  edit.,  London,  1856).  There 
they  passed  the  three  winter  months,  until  an  Alexandrian 
ship  took  them  by  Syracuse  to  Puteoli,  where  they  remained 
seven  days,  being  entertained  by  Christian  brethren  (xxviii. 
1-14).  The  fact  that  deputations  from  the  Church  of  Rome, 
whither  one  of  Paul's  companions  had  probably  gone  on  to 
announce  the  Apostle's  arrival,  went  out  to  the  Via  Appia  to 
meet  the  advancing  conveyance,  greeting  him  already  at  the 
Forum  Appii,  and  afterwards,  doubtless  in  greater  number 
at  the  Tres  tabern®  (xxviii.  15),  only  proves  how  fully  the 
Roman  Epistle  had  attained  its  object.  In  Rome  the  pri- 
soner was  permitted  to  occupy  a  private  dwelling,  where, 
although  chained  to  the  soldiers  who  guarded  him,  he  was 
able  throughout  the  two  years  of  his  captivity  to  preach  the 
Gospel  to  all  who  visited  him  (xxviii.  16,  30  f.),8  no  man 
forbidding  him. 

1  Those  who  make  Festus  enter  upon  his  office  in  the  year  60  (Note  1) 
have  in  many  ways  found  in  the  words  6  iKo.Tovr6.p\os  waptSuiee  roi>t 
Seo-fidovs  T$  ffTpa.TOTreda.pxv  (xxviii.  16)  a  proof  that  at  that  time  Burrus 
was  sole  prafectus  prsetorio,  while  before  and  after  him  there  were  two 


358 

§  26.    THE  EPISTLE  TO  TBB  PHILIPPIANS. 

1.  The  Apostle's  epistle  to  the  Philippians  dates  from  the 
time  of  his  captivity  at  Borne,  comparatively  from  the  later 
part  of  it,  as  shown  by  the  many  experiences  he  had  already 
made  in  that  city.  He  was  still  in  bonds  (Phil.  i.  7,  13  f., 
17),  but  hoped  with  great  confidence  for  a  speedy  decision 
in  his  favour  (i.  25,  ii.  23  f.)  although  he  was  prepared  for 
martyrdom  (ii.  17  f.).1  For  his  part,  he  scarcely  knew 
which  he  would  prefer ;  since  the  longing  for  his  heavenly 
home  was  only  counterbalanced  by  anxiety  for  his  Churches 
(i.  20-24).  In  any  case  he  looked  forward  to  the  future 
with  joyful  courage;  which  did  not  however  prevent  his 
being  weary  of  long  confinement.  We  hear  nothing  more 
of  a  desire  for  newer  and  wider  activity  than  his  imprison- 
ment offered,  such  as  he  so  strongly  expressed  even  in 

prefects ;  and  therefore  that  Paul  mast  have  already  come  to  Rome  in  the 
spring  of  61,  since  Burrus  died  in  the  spring  of  G2.  But  these  words  are 
probably  spurious ;  and  even  if  genuine  could  only  denote  the  prefect 
actually  in  office ;  and  in  any  case  Paul  may  have  arrived  in  Borne  just 
before  the  den th  of  Burrus.  He  cannot  have  arrived  later  than  the 
spring  of  the  year  62  (according  to  Note  1).  As  to  what  delayed  his 
trial  there  for  so  long,  although,  to  judge  by  the  way  in  which  he  was 
treated,  the  account  given  by  Festus  must  evidently  have  made  a  good 
impression,  we  are  absolutely  without  knowledge. 

>  After  Oeder  had  transferred  the  Epistle  to  Corinth  in  a  Progr. 
(Ansbach,  1781),  Boettger  in  his  BeitrSge  (1837)  following  the  example 
of  Paulus  (df  Tempore  ad  Phil.  Ep.,  1790)  endeavoured  to  show  that  the 
Apostle  could  only  have  been  a  prisoner  in  Borne  from  3-5  days,  accord- 
ing to  Roman  jurisdiction,  and  consequently  that  this  epistle  too  must 
have  been  written  in  Caosarea.  He  was  followed  only  by  Thiersch. 
The  mention  of  the  Pretorium,  i.e.  the  Pretorian  camp,  as  well  as  of 
the  olnla.  TOU  Kalffapoi  (i.  13 ;  iv.  12)  obviously  points  to  Borne,  where 
alone  Paul  had  to  expect  a  decision  of  life  and  death,  which  he 
could  put  off  everywhere  else  by  an  appeal  to  Borne.  Even  those  who 
erroneously  transfer  the  Colossian  and  Ephesian  Epistles  to  Borne, 
mostly  regard  our  epistle  as  the  later  written,  although  Bleek  holds  this 
to  be  doubtful.  Bat  Hermann's  assumption  that  Paul's  condition  had 
taken  a  decisive  turn  inasmuch  as  he  was  already  transferred  from  the 
hired  lodging  to  the  Pretorium,  and  therefore  that  his  cause  had  advanced 
to  a  judicial  decision,  cannot  be  sustained  by  i.  13. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE   PHILIPPIANS.  359 

Ccesarea  (Col.  iv.  3 ;  Eph.  vi.  19) ;  he  only  longed  after 
his  Churches  that  were  in  such  constant  need  of  en- 
couragement (Phil.  i.  24  ff.,  ii.  24),  while  many  whom  he 
had  once  hoped  to  gain  he  was  now  obliged  with  tears 
to  leave  to  their  fate  (iii.  18  f.).  It  came  to  pass  that 
Paul  saw  the  former  wish  of  his  heart  to  have  fruit  in  the 
metropolis  (Rom.  i.  13)  fulfilled  to  a  degree  that  the  dark 
dispensation  by  which  he  had  come  to  Rome  not  as  the 
victorious  conqueror  of  the  world  in  the  service  of  the 
gospel  but  in  chains  and  bonds,  had  never  allowed  him  to 
hope.  News  of  the  strange  prisoner  who  suffered  bondage 
year  after  year  for  the  sake  of  a  new  gospel  of  salvation 
had  been  spread  through  the  whole  barracks  by  the  soldiers 
of  the  Pretorian  guard  who  were  alternately  charged  with 
his  custody;  and  had  thence  penetrated  to  circles  of -the 
metropolis  that  had  never  heard  of  Christianity  before ; 
adherents  were  gained  even  in  the  Emperor's  palace  (Phil, 
i.  12  f.,  iv.  22).  Moreover  his  captivity  in  Rome  tended 
not  a  little  to  stimulate  the  brethren  there  in  making  known 
the  gospel ;  for  apart  from  the  encouraging  example  afforded 
by  his  own  irrepressible  joy  in  confessing  it,  it  became  more 
and  more  evident  that  no  valid  accusation  could  be  brought 
against  the  evangelical  message  for  which  he  was  in  bonds. 
The  Apostle  did  not  indeed  conceal  from  himself  the  fact 
that  the  zeal  he  excited  for  the  work  of  evangelization  did 
not  invariably  proceed  from  pure  motives.  It  was  evident 
that  those  who  had  hitherto  played  the  most  prominent  part 
in  the  Church,  and  had  formerly  welcomed  the  Apostle  with 
joy  when  he  had  come  presumably  for  a  short  stay,  now  felt 
injured  by  the  fact  that  in  spite  of  his  imprisonment  he 
formed  the  true  centre  of  the  Church.  Their  chief  concern 
was  by  their  own  redoubled  activity  to  outdo  him  in  the 
influence  which  they  envied  him ;  and  by  invidious  criticism 
of  his  person  and  work  to  depreciate  his  authority  in 
their  own  favour.  But  if  they  thought  by  this  means  to 


360  THE   SENDING  FROM   PIIILIPPI. 

make  the  captive  painfully  aware  of  thoir  superiority,  they 
little  knew  the  Apostle's  unselfish  interest  in  the  cause  of 
Christ  (i.  14-17).8  Nor  had  he  any  lack  of  brethren  who 
adhered  faithfully  to  him  (iv.  21).s  He  frequently  suffered 
from  want  of  earthly  goods ;  but  he  was  accustomed  to  this, 
and  did  not  feel  it  (iv.  11  ff.).  Nothing  had  power  to 
disturb  the  joy  that  filled  him  on  account  of  the  visible 
advance  of  God's  work,  or  the  deep  peace  of  mind  with 
which  he  awaited  the  determination  of  his  fate. 

2.  It  was  a  joyful  surprise  for  the  Apostle  when  an  nn- 
expected  gift  arrived  from  his  beloved  Philippians,  who  had 
again  refused  to  let  themselves  be  relieved  of  care  for 
the  bodily  needs  of  their  Apostle  (iv.  10).  But  a  mere 
remittance  of  money  was  not  all ;  the  Church  had  commis- 
sioned  one  of  their  best  men,  Epaphroditus,  to  convey  the 
gift  personally,  and  by  his  presence  with  the  Apostle  to 
represent  them  all  (ii.  25-30).  What  the  ambassador  told 
him  of  the  Church  could  only  increase  his  tender  love 
for  those  whom  he  calls  his  joy  and  crown  (iv.  1).  He 
emphatically  states  that  in  thinking  of  them  he  is  filled 
only  with  joy  and  gratitude  toward  God,  with  the  tenderest 

*  This  is  generally  supposed  to  refer  to  Judaistic  teachers  in  Borne, 
whose  appear  mce  is  made  aii  argument  for  the  still  strongly  Jewish- 
Christian  character  of  the  Roman  Church  (§  22,  3).     Bat  the  way  in 
which  Paul  unreservedly  gives  expression  to  his  joy  respecting  this  acces- 
sion of  preaching  (i.  18),  makes  it  quite  inconceivable  that  these  personal 
opponents  should  have  preached  a  gospel  in  any  way  differing  from 
that  which  he  preached,  as  has  very  justly  been  acknowledged,  in  the 
face  of  all  attempts  to  obscure  the  fact  by  the  latest  opponent  of  the 
epistle  (Holsten),  and  conceded  by  its  latest  defender  (P.  Schmidt).    But 
ii  it  is  thus  established  that  they  preached  the  Pauline  gospel,  there  is 
no  further  reason  for  regarding  them  as  Jewish-Christians. 

*  ii.  20  has  often  been  erroneously  interpreted  as  a  complaint  on 
Paul's  part  of  his  isolation.    He  only  says  that  all  are  not  so  unselfish 
as  his  Timothy,  who  served  him  with  filial  love  and  was  ready  to  sacri- 
fice himself  in  the  performance  of  any  commission  (ii.  21  f.).     It  can 
scarcely  be  supposed  that  Aristarchus  and  Lucas  were  still  with  him, 
for  he  sends  no  greeting  from  them,  and  they  would  hardly  o  pie  under 
the  judgment  expressed  in  ii.  20  I. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE   PHILIPPIANS.  361 

love  and  yearning  toward  each  and  all  (i.  3  f .,  7  f.)  ;  recall- 
ing how  they  had  remained  the  same  in  their  fellowship  in 
the  gospel  from  the  first  day  until  now,  when  they  gave  new 
proof  of  it  in  their  gift  (i.  5-7),  and  how  they  had  always 
been  obedient  (ii.  12)  ;  so  that  he  could  only  expect  good  of 
them  in  the  future  (i.  6 ;  ii.  19 ;  iii.  15). 

Nevertheless  the  older  criticism,  led  astray  by  a  misinterpretation  of 
the  third  chapter  originating  as  early  as  the  Patristic  time,  supposed 
that  this  Church  too  had  been  thrown  into  confusion  by  Judaistic 
errorists.  Since  Eichhorn  and  Storr,  the  view  of  a  Jewish- Christian 
schism  in  the  Church  has  been  adopted,  its  description  being  more 
and  more  highly  coloured,  until  Eheinwald  in  his  Commentary  (1827) 
went  so  far  as  to  assume  that  the  Church  was  at  last  threatened  with 
complete  destruction  owing  to  the  split  between  Jewish  and  Gentile 
Christians.  This  conception  was  indeed  somewhat  modified  by  Schott, 
Neander,  and  Guericke ;  but  it  was  Schinz  (Die  Christliche  Gemeinde  zu 
Philippi,  Zurich,  1833)  who  first  pointed  out  its  entire  incompatibility 
with  the  Gentile-Christian  character  of  the  Church  and  all  the  utter- 
ances of  the  Apostle  respecting  it.1  On  the  other  hand,  most  modern 
introduction-writers  and  commentators,  following  his  example,  have 
abandoned  the  theory  of  a  doctrinal  antagonism,  and  adopted  the  view 
that  the  Church  was  imperilled  by  personal  dissensions  called  forth  by 
the  arrogant  boast  of  their  own  privileges  and  jealous  depreciation  of 
the  merits  of  others.  But  we  have  no  warrant  whatever  for  inferring 
from  the  deep  psychological  foundation  of  the  exhortation  to  Christian 
virtue,  the  existence  of  opposite  errors ;  the  image  of  the  Church  thus 
presented  is  no  less  inconsistent  with  the  praise  lavished  on  the  whole 
Church,  than  that  attacked  by  Schinz ;  and  the  mention  of  a  single 
quarrel  between  two  women  (iv.  2  f.)  is  manifestly  no  reason  for  conclud- 
ing that  the  whole  Church  suffered  from  similar  faults,  but  the  reverse. 
After  the  praise  bestowed  on  the  Church  it  is  quite  inconceivable  that 

1  It  has  nevertheless  cropped  up  again  in  recent  times,  Holsten,  the 
opponent  of  the  epistle,  and  P.  Schmidt  its  defender,  having  again 
asserted  the  mixed  character  of  the  Church,  whose  divided  faith  caused  a 
severe  strain  between  the  two  parties,  symbolized  even  in  the  view  of  so 
intelligent  a  critic  as  Holsten,  by  the  two  female  names  in  iv.  2.  This 
antagonism,  however,  is  no  longer  referred  to  the  alleged  Judaistio 
errorists  of  the  third  chapter,  but  is  evolved  from  the  emphasizing  of 
the  irdvres  and  the  entirely  misinterpreted  xoaxavla.  (i.  5),  as  well  as  from 
i.  27,  ii.  2  ff. ;  while  Mangold  even  goes  back  completely  to  the  older 
view,  making  the  irdvrey  (i.  3,  7)  manifestly  untrue. 


362  OBJECT  OP  THE  EPISTLE. 

iv.  18  f.  sliould  refer  to  pretended  Christians  living  in  immorality,  who 
however,  to  jndge  from  the  context,  could  only  be  found  in  Philippi. 

Doubtless  it  was  not  alone  the  need  of  thanking  the 
Church  for  the  gift  he  had  received  that  moved  the  Apostle 
to  write  them  a  letter.  He  desires  to  send  Timothy  that 
he  might  be  refreshed  by  a  good  account  of  them  (ii.  19). 
He  cannot  therefore  have  been  free  from  anxiety  concerning 
them,  notwithstanding  all  that  is  said  in  their  praise.  But 
the  chief  cause  of  this  anxiety  was  unquestionably,  as  in 
Thessalonica  (comp.  2  Thess.  i.  4  f.  with  Phil.  i.  28  f.),  the 
external  pi'essure  put  npon  the  Church  by  their  still  unbe- 
lieving countrymen.  The  flourishing  Macedonian  Churches 
appear  specially  to  have  incurred  such  enmity  from  them 
(comp.  also  ii.  15  f.).  Not  that  Paul  feared  that  the  Church 
would  be  led  into  apostasy  by  this  means ;  but  it  lay  like  a 
heavy  weight  on  them ;  and  the  fact  that  their  Apostle  had 
lain  for  years  in  chains  and  bonds  as  if  forsaken  by  God, 
contributed  not  a  little  to  their  increasing  sensitiveness. 
True  joy  in  believing  was  the  goal  to  which  the  progress 
desired  on  their  behalf  was  to  lead  (i.  25) ;  Paul  again  and 
again  exhorts  to  Christian  joy  which  overcomes  all  murmur- 
ings  and  doubts  (ii.  14-18),  which  rests  in  Christ  as  the  sole 
foundation  (iii.  1)  and  casts  all  care  npon  God  (iv.  4  ff.). 
But  knowing  that  union  makes  strength  (i.  27),  he  emphati- 
cally exhorts  to  unanimity  which  is  maintained  only  by 
unselfish  humility  (ii.  2  ff.).  It  is  not  love  in  which  the 
Church  is  wanting  and  which  he  supplicates  on  their  be- 
half, but  a  right  understanding  of  the  way  in  which  love 
becomes  fruitful  in  its  effects  (i.  9  ff.).  He  has  no  par- 
ticular fault  to  censure ;  but  in  earnest  Christian  wrestling 
for  salvation  (ii.  12  f.),  in  constant  striving  towards  the 
goal  (iii.  15  f.),  in  joy  in  the  beautiful  tasks  set  them  in 
evangelical  preaching  (iv.  8  f.),  they  are  to  overcome  the 
spirit  of  despondency  that  weighs  them  down,  and  anxiety 
for  the  future  under  all  menaces  of  the  present.  Such  is 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHlLlPPIANS.  363 

the  aim  of  this  Epistle  de  gaudio,  as  it  has  so  often  since 
Bengel  been  called  with  justice. 

3.  From  the  inscription  of  the  epistle  we  see  that  the 
Church  at  Philippi  had  already  bishops  and  deacons; 
whether  from  the  beginning  or  not,  we  do  not  know.  The 
reason  of  their  being  expressly  included  in  the  introductory 
greeting  (i.  1  f.)  is  probably  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
they  had  suggested  the  offering  of  love  to  Paul,  and  been 
instrumental  in  carrying  it  out.  In  none  of  his  epistles 
does  he  give  such  emphatic  expression  to  his  gratitude 
toward  God,  his  confidence  in  their  further  progress,  and 
his  tender  love  for  his  readers,  to  which  he  attaches  the 
usual  form  of  intercession  on  their  behalf  (i.  3-11).  He 
then  proceeds  in  the  first  place  to  allay  their  anxiety 
respecting  him.  Hitherto  his  imprisonment  had  tended 
greatly  to  the  furtherance  of  the  gospel,  which  is  a  con- 
tinual  source  of  joy  to  him  (i.  12-18).  In  any  case  he 
looks  forward  with  joy  and  confidence  to  the  decision 
respecting  his  fate;  but  is  firmly  convinced  that  it  will 
prove  to  their  advantage  (i.  19-26).  It  lies  with  them,  by 
steadfastness  in  the  fight  of  faith  without  (i.  27-30),  and 
by  that  union  which  has  its  root  in  self-denying  humility 
and  of  which  Christ  had  set  them  an  example  (ii.  1-11), 
not  only  to  work  out  the  salvation  of  their  own  souls,  but 
also  to  increase  and  share  his  joy  (ii.  12-18).  The  very 
form  in  which  he  clothes  his  exhortation  shows  how  far  it 
was  from  being  directed  to  the  reform  of  serious  evil  in 
the  Church.  It  is  for  their  consolation  and  in  order  to  be 
quickened  by  fresh  news  of  them  that  he  desires  to  send 
Timothy  to  them,  as  soon  as  he  can  learn  the  issue  of  his 
trial.  He  gives  his  reasons  for  choosing  Timothy  for  this 
mission;  and  promises  to  follow  in  person  as  speedily  as 
possible  (ii.  19-24).  But  the  Church  was  also  in  great 
anxiety  concerning  Epaphroditus,  who,  having  fallen  sick  on 
the  way,  had  allowed  himself  no  rest,  that  he  might  carry 


364  ANALYSIS  OP  THE   EPISTLE. 

out  the  charge  with  which  the  Apostle  had  entrusted  him ; 
and  had  by  this  means  been  in  the  greatest  danger  of  losing 
his  life.  After  his  recovery  he  seems  to  have  been  so  home- 
sick, that  the  Apostle  preferred  to  do  without  the  faithful 
representative  of  his  favourite  Church  rather  than  leave  the 
Philippians  any  longer  in  anxiety  respecting  him,  or  witness 
his  longing  for  home.  He  therefore  sent  him  back  with  the 
letter ;  and  while  with  the  most  charming  delicacy  he  makes 
it  appear  as  if  his  first  object  were  to  relieve  himself  of  all 
care,  he  prepares  a  good  reception  for  the  delegate,  who  had 
in  truth  but  half  fulfilled  his  mission  (ii.  25-30).  It  is  not 
till  now  that  the  Apostle  comes  to  the  leading  exhortation 
to  true  Christian  joy,  which  however  is  in  essence  the  key- 
note that  runs  through  all  the  previous  part  (iii.  1).  He 
begins  by  unfolding  the  true  and  only  ground  of  this  joy  in 
opposition  to  unbelieving  Judaism,  showing  from  his  own  ex- 
perience how  he  regarded  all  the  carnal  gains  and  privileges 
of  the  latter  as  loss,  for  the  sake  of  Christ  and  the  salvation 
given  in  Him  (iii.  2-11).  He  does  not  mean  to  say  that  he 
has  already  reached  the  goal  of  the  full  appropriation  of 
Christ  as  this  highest  good,  for  Christian  perfection  can  only 
consist  in  constant  striving  after  it,  and  in  the  right  use  of 
that  which  is  already  attained  (iii.  12-16).  Finally  by  draw- 
ing an  adverse  picture  of  the  enemies  of  the  cross  of  Christ 
who  seek  their  joy  and  glory  in  the  shameful  lusts  of  the 
earth,  he  shows  how  we  have  in  Christ  the  earnest  of  a  glori- 
ous hope  that  promises  the  highest  transfiguration  even  of 
our  material  bodies  (iii.  17-iv.  I).1  In  conclusion  he  admon- 

1  Expositors  have  so  little  understood  the  transition  in  iii.  1,  that  it 
has  been  taken  for  an  allusion  to  former  epistles  (comp.  Bleek,  Holsten, 
and  P.  Schmidt) ;  or  even,  as  Paulus  in  the  Heidelberger  Jahrb.,  1872,  7, 
held,  for  the  beginning  for  a  new  epistle,  perhaps  to  more  intimate 
friends  of  the  Apostle  or  to  officers  of  the  Church  (comp.  Krause,  An  Ep. 
ad  Phil,  in  Dual  Ep.  Discerp.  tit,  Itegiom.,  1811).  Ewald  regarded 
iii.  1-ir.  1,  and  iv.  2  ff.  as  two  distinct  supplements ;  and  Hausrath 
holds  that  our  epistle  was  made  up  of  two  separate  ones.  That  the 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PEILIPPIANS.  365 

ishes  two  women,  who  with  Clement  and  his  fellow-labourers 
had  formerly  rendered  good  service  to  the  mission,  to  be  at 
peace ;  and  begs  their  true  yokefellows  to  help  them  in  this 
respect  (iv.  2  f.).  Once  again  however,  he  exhorts  all  to 
have  true  Christian  joy  and  to  strive  after  Christian  virtue 
(iv.  4-9).  Not  till  then  does  he  thank  them  for  the  gift 
they  had  sent  him,  which  indeed  he  did  not  require  but 
in  which  for  their  sakes  he  rejoiced ;  because  they  had  thus 
remained  true  to  themselves  and  would  receive  the  reward 
lie  promised  them  from  God  (iv.  10-20).  Through  the  rulers 
of  the  Church  to  whom  the  epistle  was  delivered,  he  sends 
greeting  to  each  one  as  in  1  Thess.  v.  26 ;  salutes  them  from 
those  by  whom  he  is  immediately  surrounded  as  well  as 
from  the  whole  Roman  Church,  especially  the  members  of 
the  Imperial  household,  and  concludes  with  the  benediction 
(iv.  21-23). 

4.  After  Schrader  had  led  the  way  by  throwing  doubt 
on  section  iii.  1-iv.  9,  the  Tubingen  school  declared  the 
Philippian  Epistle  along  with  the  rest  of  the  Captivity 
Epistles,  to  be  spurious.  According  to  Baur,  it  too  moved 
in  the  circle  of  Gnostic  ideas  and  expressions;  ii.  6  in 
particular  only  finding  its  explanation  in  a  reference  to 
the  history  of  the  Valentinian  Sophia.1  Plank  and  Kostlin 

first  half  of  chap.  iii.  refers  not  to  Jewish-Christian  opponents  but  to 
Judaism,  is  now  universally  admitted ;  although  Mangold  again  opposes 
it;  the  second  half  on  the  other  hand  is  sometimes  made  to  refer  to 
Jewish-Christians,  and  at  other  times  to  nominal  Christians  who  were 
living  in  immorality.  But  the  enemies  of  the  cross  of  Christ  who 
practise  idolatry  with  shameful  sensual  indulgence  can  only  be  heathen 
(oomp.  the  ivriKelnevoi  in  i.  28  and  the  epithet  unclean  rives  in  iii.  2),  of 
whom  Paul  formerly  hoped  that  they  might  be  won  over  to  Christianity, 
but  whom  he  can  now  only  with  deep  sorrow  characterize  as  ripe  for 
destruction.  Exegesis  is  fundamentally  at  fault  in  regarding  vers.  2  as 
a  warning  and  making  it  refer  to  the  same  people,  while  the  wording 
compels  us  to  think  of  others  in  whom  Paul  wishes  to  exemplify  the 
antithesis  of  the  xa("eiv  tv  nvpl<p. 

1  Compare  his  dispute  with  Ernesti  on  this  subject  (Stud.  u.  Krit., 
1848,  4 ;  1851,  3)  in  the  Theol.  Jahrb.,  1849,  4  ;  1852,  2.  Baur  was 


3GG  TUBINGEN   CRITICISM  OF  THB  EPISTLB. 

(Theolog.  Jahrb.,  1847,  50)  also  endeavoured  to  prove  that  the 
justification-theory  of  the  epistle  and  its  attitude  toward  the 
legal  economy  was  no  longer  genuinely  Pauline,  and  to  carry 
out  Baur's  hints  on  this  point.  But  Baur  had  already  de- 
scribed the  proper  aim  of  the  composition  as  conciliatory. 
He  unhesitatingly  identified  the  Philippian  Clement  men- 
tioned in  iv.  3  with  the  Flavius  Clement  executed  under 
Domitian  by  combining  this  passage  with  iv.  22 ;  and  in  the 
fact  that  this  genuine  Petrine  disciple  of  the  Clementine 
tradition  was  raised  to  be  a  fellow- worker  with  Paul,  he 
found  a  confirmation  of  such  tendency.  According  to 
Schwegler  the  allusion  to  the  hostile  attitude  with  respect 
to  Paul  assumed  by  the  Roman  Judaists  (i.  15  f.;  iii.  2  f.) 
also  serves  the  same  tendency ;  though  it  is  hard  to  under- 
stand how  the  pseudonymous  writer  could  make  his  Paul 
judge  them  so  leniently  at  one  time  and  so  harshly  at 
another;  a  thing  that  occurs  nowhere  else  (i.  18;  iii.  2). 
Following  a  hint  thrown  out  by  Baur  he  first  metamor- 
phosed the  two  women  in  iv.  2  into  the  two  opposing 
Christian  parties,  whom  Paul,  appealing  to  his  crv£vyos,  i.e. 
Peter,  exhorts  to  union ;  a  thought  afterwards  spun  out  by 
Volkmar  still  more  fancifully  (Theol.  Jahrb.,  1856,  1857). 
This  criticism  was  at  once  opposed  not  only  by  Ernesti  and 
Lunemann  (PH.  ad  Philipp.  Ep.t  Gott.,  1847),  but  also  by 
Bruckner  (Ep.  ad  Phil.,  Lips.,  1848),  Grimm  (in  the  Theol. 
Liter aturbibl.,  1850,  51),  and  especially  Weiss  in  his  Kom- 
mentar,  1859  ;  but  after  the  genuineness  of  the  epistle  had 
been  energetically  defended  even  by  Hilgenfeld,  the  later 
critical  school  (Hausrath,  Holtzmann,  Schenkel,  Pfleiderer, 


absolutely  incapable  of  rightly  estimating  the  epistle,  which  certainly 
does  not  bear  the  character  of  the  great  doctrinal  and  polemic  epistles 
throughout ;  everywhere  he  found  monotonous  repetitions,  want  of  con- 
nection, poverty  of  thought,  weak  imitation  of  older  epistles,  prominence 
given  to  the  person  of  the  Apostle  in  the  interest  of  a  tendency,  and 
above  all  no  fully  explained  motive. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS.  367 

comp.  also  Weiffenbach,  zur  Ausleg.  v.  Phil.  ii.  5-11,  Leipz., 
1884,  and  others)  followed  suit ;  and  the  Philippian  Epistle 
might  for  a  long  time  have  been  regarded  as  a  position 
abandoned  by  criticism. 

It  is  in  fact  hard  to  understand  how  an  epistle  containing  so  little 
that  is  properly  doctrinal,  and  for  the  forging  of  which  no  object  what- 
ever can  be  conceived,  should  be  spurious.  The  purely  personal  out- 
pourings of  the  Apostle's  heart  respecting  his  feelings  towards  the 
Philippiana,  his  frame  of  mind  and  prospects  in  captivity,  would  appear 
to  be  entirely  at  variance  with  such  a  view;  especially  does  it  seem 
inconceivable  that  a  pseudonymous  writer  should  have  put  into  the 
mouth  of  the  Apostle  the  expectation  of  being  set  free,  although  such 
expectation  by  the  assumption  of  criticism  was  not  actually  fulfilled. 
On  what  theory  could  the  discussions  respecting  the  sending  of  Timothy, 
that  seem  to  condemn  all  other  fellow-workers  of  the  Apostle  in  an 
unheard-of  way,  be  explained,  or  the  sending  back  of  Epaphroditus ; 
especially  as  they  presuppose  entirely  concrete  details,  for  whose  inven- 
tion there  could  have  been  no  possible  motive  ?  The  passionate  polemic 
against  the  alleged  Jewish-Christians  of  chap,  iii.,  transcending  all 
measure  and  moderation,  would  in  that  case  be  unintelligible ;  and 
though  certainly  forming  the  true  point  of  the  whole  composition,  would 
be  in  glaring  conflict  with  its  pacific  aim.  The  personal  matter  in 
the  conclusion  (iv.  2  f.,  22)  could  however,  if  pseudonymous,  only  be 
explained  by  an  exegesis  that  could  hardly  be  taken  seriously;  the 
constantly  recurring  exhortations  to  Christian  joy,  justly  regarded  by 
Baur  as  the  key-note  and  fundamental  idea  of  the  epistle,  would  be 
quite  too  simple  for  a  pseudonymous  composition ;  and  the  device  of  a 
money-remittance  as  its  motive,  in  discussing  which  the  pseudonymous 
writer  is  moreover  represented  as  putting  himself  in  contradiction  with 
manifest  facts  of  the  genuine  Pauline  Epistles,  would  be  too  clumsy. 

5.  Nevertheless,  after  the  qnestion  had  been  newly  raised 
by  Hitzig  (Zur  Kritik  d.  paid.  Briefe,  Leipz.,  1870)  and 
Hinsch  (Zeitschr.  f.  wiss.  TheoL,  1873,  1),  Holsten  again 
attacked  the  epistle  with  new  methods  and  entirely  new 
resnlts  (Jahrb.  fur  protest.  Theol.,  1875,  3;  76,  1,  2).  The 
theory  of  a  Gnostic  interpretation  is  here  abandoned,  as  also 
its  classification  with  the  union-efforts  of  the  second  century. 
According  to  Holsten,  a  Pauline  unionist  of  the  first  cen- 
tury, nearer  to  70  than  90,  carried  out  the  conciliation- 


368  GENUINENESS   OF  THE   EPISTLE. 

policy  already  begun  by  Paul  in  the  Roman  Epistle  a  step 
farther,  in  order  to  restore  the  internal  unity  of  the  mixed 
Church  at  Philippi  by  the  combining  power  of  love  and 
identity  of  religious  consciousness  touching  true  righteous- 
ness, to  inspire  the  fainting  mind  of  the  Church  with  new 
and  joyful  energy,  and  to  attach  it  to  the  Apostle  with 
renewed  love.1  By  the  acutest  analysis  of  the  doctrine, 
mainly  in  the  direction  of  the  criticism  of  Plank  and 
Kostlin,  and  by  the  most  minute  examination  of  the  lan- 
guage and  style,  Holsten  has  endeavoured  to  prove  that  they 
are  un-  and  even  anti-Pauline.  The  fact  that  the  author 
disclaims  the  name  of  an  apostle  on  behalf  of  Paul,  and 
contents  himself  with  the  title  of  a  Aeirovpyo's,  that  the 
Pauline  Siaxovoi  are  connected  in  the  address  with  the 
Jewish-Christian  firta-icoiroi,  that  in  the  thanksgiving  for  the 
gift  no  real  thanks  are  expressed  but  the  character  of  Paul 
is  defended,  while  the  relation  of  the  Philippians  to  him  is 
no  longer  apprehended  in  a  correct  historical  manner;  all 
this  is  in  his  view  decisive  for  a  post-apostolic  authorship. 
P.  Schmidt  (NTliche  Hyperkritik,  Berlin,  1880)  has  again 
defended  the  genuineness  of  the  epistle  in  a  very  blunt  way, 
strikingly  refuting  Holsten 's  arguments  in  detail,  but  not 
on  the  whole  going  beyond  his  conception  of  the  historical 
premisses  of  the  epistle.  It  must  in  fact  be  conceded  to 
Holsten,  in  a  more  comprehensive  measure  than  Schmidt  is 

1  All  that  Paul  tells  of  his  state  and  frame  of  mind  in  captivity, 
of  his  wishes  and  hopes,  as  well  as  what  he  says  of  Timothy  and 
Epaphroditus  and  of  the  present  he  had  received,  rests  according  to 
Holsten  on  trustworthy  tradition;  while  the  violent  polemic  against 
Judaism  to  which  iii.  2  is  justly  referred,  has  its  origin  in  the  impres- 
sion made  by  the  catastrophe  of  the  year  62,  in  which  James  the  Just 
met  his  death.  Holsten  has  indeed  succeeded  in  setting  aside,  though 
not  in  solving,  the  question  raised  by  himself,  as  to  bow  an  epistle 
coming  to  Fhilippi  in  the  same  of  the  Apostle  at  a  time  when  there 
were  still  in  that  place  many  members  of  the  Church  (among  them 
probably  Epaphroditus  himself)  who  had  lived  through  the  Pauline  time 
and  knew  that  the  great  apostle  was  dead,  could  be  received  by  them 
as  genuine. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS.  369 

willing  to  allow,  that  our  epistle  presents  a  certain  variation 
from  the  Paulinistn  of  the  older  epistles,  particularly  when 
they  are  made  so  pointedly  logical,  and  are  so  doctrinally 
interpreted  as  is  often  the  case.3  The  same  thing  applies  to 
the  language  of  the  epistle.  It  is  incontestable  that  thia 
epistle  also  has  many  peculiarities  of  expression ;  and  unless 
we  refuse  to  make  the  doctrinal  vocabulary  of  the  four  great 
epistles  a  measure  of  the  Pauline,  it  is  inconsistent  to  pass 
a  milder  judgment  on  the  Philippian  Epistle  alone  in  this 
respect,  since  it  is  natural  that  such  difference  should  be 
more  apparent  in  the  letters  that  are  richer  in  doctrine. 
Even  objections,  such  as  those  drawn  from  the  absence  of 
the  title  Apostle  and  the  occurrence  of  the  crrib-Koirot,  remain 
insuperable  from  the  standpoint  of  Hilgenfeld's  criticism. 
Later  investigations  have  certainly  confirmed  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Philippian  Epistle  anew;  but  this  view  must 
lead  further,  if  it  is  not  to  be  always  fluctuating. 

6.  When  the  Acts  say  that  Paul  remained  two  full  years 
in  Rome  (xxviii.  30),  and  yet  it  is  acknowledged  that  they 
cannot  have  been  written  at  the  close  of  these  two  years  or 
else  the  account  would  have  been  quite  differently  expressed, 
it  follows  incontestably  that  a  decided  turn  in  the  Apostle's 
fortunes  took  place  at  the  end  of  these  two  years ;  but  we 
have  no  hint  as  to  whether  this  was  his  death  or  his  deliver- 

8  The  Christology  of  the  Philippian  Epistle  goes  beyond  that  of  the 
older  epistles,  though  perhaps  not  to  the  point  to  which  Holsten  pushes 
it;  the  more  rigid  doctrinal  form,  in  which  an  expression  like  iii.  6 
would  certainly  be  impossible,  is  less  apparent  in  it ;  while  the  endeavour 
to  bring  the  doctrine  of  salvation  into  closer  connection  with  practical 
life,  has  even  in  some  cases  a  direct  ethical  tendency.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  scanty  doctrinal  material  of  the  epistle,  there  is  no  lack  of 
emphasis  attached  to  knowledge  (i.  9;  iii.  8, 10),  although  a  practical 
turn  is  mostly  given  to  it ;  and  in  passages  such  as  ii.  10 ;  iii.  20  f.  the 
cosmic  significance  of  Christ  and  of  the  work  of  salvation  are  plainly 
enough  intimated.  Even  the  exhortation  to  unity  so  strongly  empha- 
sized, and  the  reference  to  Judaism  and  Heathenism  in  chap.  iii.  remind 
us  of  the  Ephesian  Epistle.  In  all  these  respects  we  are  unable  to 
separate  the  Philippian  Epistle  from  the  others  written  in  captivity. 

B  3 


370  THE   DEATH  OP  PAUL. 

ance ;  at  all  events  it  was  necessary  to  explain  the  breaking 
off  of  the  author  from  the  object  of  his  work.  He  cer- 
tainly seems  in  xx.  25  to  betray  complete  ignorance  of  the 
Apostle's  return  to  his  former  mission- field ;  and  therefore 
knew  nothing  of  his  deliverance  from  the  Roman  captivity, 
since  even  if  the  farewell  discourse  in  Miletus  be  referred 
to  ear-witnesses,  it  must  at  all  events  have  been  freely 
enough  reported  to  allow  modification  of  expression,  in  case 
the  author  knew  that  the  expectation  of  Paul  was  not  ful- 
filled. Yet  it  cannot  be  mistaken  that  the  description  of 
the  departure-scene  (xx.  37  f .)  presupposes  this  definite  con- 
ception of  Paul's  presentiment;  as  also  that  it  was  not 
fulfilled  in  the  consciousness  of  the  author  of  the  Acts,  since 
according  to  xx.  22  ff.  and  the  entire  representation  of  the 
Jerusalem- journey  (comp.  xxi.  13)  it  is  obviously  the  mar- 
tyrdom threatening  him  in  Jerusalem  which  he  supposes  to 
be  the  ground  of  this  foresight  of  the  Apostle  and  of  his 
tearful  departure.1  Thus  much  is  historically  certain,  that 
even  if  the  arrival  of  the  Apostle  in  Rome  be  put  as  late  as 
possible,  viz.  in  the  spring  of  62  (§  25,  7,  note  2),  the  two 
years  had  still  elapsed  before  the  outbreak  of  persecution 
after  the  burning  of  Rome  in  the  summer  of  64 ;  and  Paul  is 
as  likely  to  have  escaped  this  catastrophe  by  his  release  as 
to  have  met  his  death  in  it.  The  passage  in  Dionysius  of 
Corinth  (ap.  Enseb.,  II.  E.t  2,  25)  does  not  imply  that  Paul 
came  to  Rome  aloug  with  Peter  and  that  both  suffered  mar- 
tyrdom together,  which  would  certainly  put  this  to  a  later 
date;  but  even  if  such  were  the  meaning, so  much  allowance 

1  Whoever  sees  in  this  a  prophecy  that  naturally  fulfils  itself,  must 
admit  that  Phil.  i.  25  stands  in  irreconcileable  opposition  to  it ;  and 
those  who  regard  the  Philippian  Epistle  as  spurious  must  either  assume 
with  Hinsch  that  the  idea  of  deliverance  from  the  Roman  captivity  ia 
distinctly  expressed  in  it ;  or  with  Holsten,  that  such  traditional  though 
unfulfilled  forebodings  could  be  attributed  to  the  Apostle  even  after  hia 
death,  viz.  that  Acts  xx.  25  proves  nothing  against  deliverance  from 
lioiuan  captivity. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS.  371 

has  to  be  made  for  the  rhetorical  pathos  of  this  passage,  that 
it  cannot  be  regarded  as  historical  evidence.  The  Kara  TOV 
Katpov  undoubtedly  refers  only  to  the  time  of  Nero,  in  which 
Tertullian  also  puts  the  death  of  the  two  apostles  (Scarp., 
15) .2  But  if  there  is  any  truth  in  the  tradition  that  Peter 
was  crucified  and  Paul  beheaded  (de  Prcescr.  fleer.,  36),  it 
certainly  does  not  point  to  the  horrors  of  the  year  64,  in 
which  Paul's  Roman  citizenship  would  not  have  saved  him 
from  the  death  of  a  slave ;  moreover  Irenseus  (Adv.  fleer ,  III. 
1,  1)  already  regards  the  work  and  death  of  the  two  apostles 
at  Rome  as  essentially  contemporaneous,  which  can  hardly 
have  happened  during  the  captivity  with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted.8 

If  indeed  it  could  be  proved  that  Paul  had  actually  made  the  journey 
into  Spain  that  he  had  formerly  projected,  it  would  of  course  be  neces- 
sary to  assume  that  he  was  released  from  the  first  Bom  an  captivity.  But 
the  strongly  coloured  rhetorical  passage  in  Clement  of  Home,  according 
to  which  Paul  went  up  and  down  like  a  herald,  teaching  the  whole  world 
righteousness  (ad  Cor.  5,  xa.1  iwl  rtpua  r??s  8v<rfus  i\0&v  ical  fiaprvpfoas  tirl 
T&V  riyovpfruv  oCrwj  drnjXXdTi;  TOV  *c<5<r/tou),  is  utterly  inadequate  to  prove 
that  euch  was  the  case.4  The  idea  that  the  Muratorian  Canon  seems  to 


*  From  the  way  in  which  Clement  (ad  Cor.  6,  1)  passes  from  the  mar- 
tyrdom of  Peter  and  Paul  to  the  martyrs  of  Nero's  persecution  (rovroa 
roft  &v$pd(ru> — ffwrjOpolffOi)  iro\v  wXijOos  ^/tXe/cTwp)  it  by  no  means  follows, 
as  Hilgenfeld,  Seyerleu  and  Hnrnack  (on  this  passage)  maintain,  that  he 
supposes  them  also  to  have  been  slain  during  this  persecution.  That 
both  apostles  died  a  martyr's  death  in  Borne,  we  know  from  Caius  of 
Borne  (ap.  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  2,  25),  who  believes  he  can  still  show  their 
monuments  or  the  places  of  their  martyrdom. 

3  The  Pradicatio  Petri  also  assumes  a  meeting  of  the  two  apostles  in 
Borne.    But  when  the  Acta  Petri  et  Pauli  in  their  representation  of  the 
martyrdom  of  Panl,  make  no  mention  of  a  second  Boman  captivity,  and 
the  His  tor.  Apostol.  of  the  Pseudo-Abdias  excludes  it,  they  have  no 
authentic  historical  foundation. 

4  Without  venturing  upon  artificial  explanations  of  the  rfpfta  T.  S6<r.t 
it  must  be  conceded  that  a  reference  to  the  extreme  western  limits  of  the 
orbis  terrarum,  viz.  to  Spain  is  possible  from  a  Boman  standpoint, 
although  it  is  just  as  likely  to  refer  to  a  limit  assigned  to  the  Apostle 
in  the  West  (comp.  Schenkel,  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1841,  1).    But  the  peculiar 


372  TBADITION  OF  A  SECOND  CAPTIVITY. 

presuppose  a  journey  to  Spain  on  the  part  of  the  Apostle,  rests,  like  the 
similar  view  current  with  the  Church  Fathers  since  the  fourth  century, 
solely  on  Bom.  xv.  24,  28;  while  the  statement  of  Origen  (ap.  Euseb., 
H.  £.,  3,1),  which  seems  to  preclude  the  idea  of  such  a  journey,  un- 
doubtedly from  its  wording  goes  back  simply  to  Bom.  xv.  19.  It  is  a 
fact  that  we  have  no  historical  trace  of  Pauline  Church-foundations  in 
Spain,  which  makes  this  Spanish  journey  highly  improbable  ;  but  since 
Paul  during  his  captivity  at  Borne  thinks  only  of  returning  to  his  old 
missionary  field  of  labour  (Phil.  i.  25  f.,  ii.  24)  and  therefore  seems  to 
have  given  up  this  journey  (at  least  for  a  time),  the  probability  that  it 
was  never  accomplished  is  by  no  means  prejudicial  to  the  view  of  his 
martyrdom  during  the  captivity  with  which  we  are  acquainted. 

7.  Eusebins  professes  to  have  heard  (Aoyos  (\fi)  that  Paul 
was  released  from  his  first  imprisonment,  continued  his 
preaching,  and  suffered  martyrdom  during  a  second  imprison- 
ment under  Nero  (H.  E.t  3,  22).  In  this  captivity  he  puts 
the  second  Epistle  to  Timothy  where  Paul  speaks  of  his 
former  defence  and  of  his  deliverance  from  the  mouth  of  the 
lion  (2  Tim.  iv.  16  f.),  i.e.,  according  to  his  (undoubtedly 
false)  interpretation,  of  the  release  from  the  first  captivity. 
Luke  who  alone  was  with  him  at  that  time  (iv.  11),  was  not 
present  at  his  first  answer  (iv.  16)  and  therefore  was  not 
able  to  record  the  favourable  termination  of  his  first  cap- 
tivity. It  was  the  more  probable,  however,  because  Nero 
was  more  gently  disposed  during  the  first  period  of  his  reign, 
and  it  was  only  later  that  he  became  more  cruel.  From 
these  exegetical  and  historical  considerations  it  is  clear  that 
the  release  from  the  first  captivity  was  not  even  in  the 
opinion  of  Ensebius  a  simple  historical  tradition  but  an  as- 
sumption handed  down,  which  he  felt  bound  to  support  by 
all  means  in  his  power.  Later  writers  have  simply  repeated 
the  same  thing,  from  Jerome  down  (rfe  Vir.  III.,  5),  who 
added  the  year  of  Paul's  death,  making  him  die  on  the 


way  in  which  the  arrival  at  this  goal  is  connected  with 
before  the  rulers  of  the  world,  both  being  made  descriptive  of  his  de- 
parture from  the  world  (comp.  the  o0rwt),  is  decidedly  in  favour  of  Borne 
being  meant  by  this  rlppa. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE   PHtLlPPIANS.  373 

same  day  with  Peter.  The  Roman  Church  puts  Paul's 
death  in  the  year  67 ;  but  Gelasius  declared  it  heresy  not 
to  hold  that  both  apostles  died  on  the  same  day.  We  must 
therefore  abide  by  the  view  that  Paul's  deliverance  from 
his  Roman  captivity  can  neither  be  proved  nor  denied  on 
secure  historical  grounds.1  But  Eusebius  is  quite  right  in 
thinking,  however  faulty  his  exegetical  proof,  that  if  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  are  genuine,  which  he  never  doubted  and 
which  he  by  no  means  attempted  to  establish  by  the  assump- 
tion of  a  second  Roman  captivity  as  has  often  been  repre- 
sented, they  afford  a  proof  that  Paul  was  released  from  the 
Roman  captivity  with  which  we  are  acquainted,  and  only 
suffered  martyrdom  during  a  second  captivity. 

Paul's  release  from  the  captivity  at  Borne  has  again  been  maintained 
and  defended  by  Church-historians  like  Flacius,  Clericus,  Tilleinout, 
Fabricius,  Mosheim,  Neander  and  Gieseler ;  among  Introduction- writers 
by  Michaelis,  Hanlein,  Bertholdt,  Hug,  Schott,  Guericke,  Credner,  Neu- 
decker,  Ewald,  Bleek,  L.  Schulze,  and  especially  by  expositors  of  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  down  to  Hofmann.  On  the  other  hand  it  has  been 
disputed  by  Hammond,  Lightfoot,  Cave,  Petavius  and  Lardner,  and 
again  recently  by  Hemsen,  Schrader,  Niedner,  as  also  in  the  Introduc- 
tions of  Schmidt,  Eichhorn  and  de  Wette,  and  in  the  interest  of  disput- 
ing the  Pastoral  Epistles,  by  the  whole  Tubingen  as  well  as  the  later 
critical  school.  Even  among  defenders  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  it  has 
been  abandoned  by  Wieseler,  Thiersch,  Ebrard,  Schaff,  Reuss,  Otto,  and 
others.  Eohler  on  the  contrary  endeavoured  to  prove  a  third  and  even 
fourth  Roman  captivity. 


1  All  objections  that  have  been  raised  against  his  release  on  a  priori 
grounds  are  of  a  trifling  character,  since  it  is  by  no  means  clear  that  his 
condition  in  the  second  captivity,  as  described  in  the  Epistle  to  Timothy, 
was  absolutely  the  same  as  in  the  first,  as  described  in  the  Philippian 
Epistle ;  but  even  if  this  were  the  case,  we  know  nothing  whatever  of  the 
relations  under  which  he  again  became  a  captive,  and  cannot  therefore 
perceive  to  what  extent  he  was  favoured  or  what  privileges  he  enjoyed. 
Nor  does  the  second  Epistle  to  Timothy  show  more  than  that  he  was 
visited  by  friends  (i.  16  f .,  v.  9, 11  f.)  and  was  permitted  to  correspond 
with  them. 


874 


§  27.    THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES. 

1.  The  first  Epistle  to  Timothy  implies  that  Paul  had 
shortly  before  been  in  Ephesus,  which  Hofmann  manifestly 
disputes  only  on  account  of  the  expectation  to  •which  the 
Apostle  gives  expression  in  Acts  xx.  25.  During  his  short 
stay  in  that  place  he  had  observed  much  that  urgently 
called  for  reform.  In  particular  a  new  mode  of  teaching 
had  been  adopted  that  seemed  to  the  Apostle  to  be  alto- 
gether unsound  and  suspicious.  His  attempt  to  put  this 
down  in  his  usual  energetic  and  peremptory  fashion  (comp. 
§  18,  1),  had  only  called  forth  violent  opposition;  contention 
respecting  words  had  given  rise  to  anger ;  and  those  who 
were  attacked,  in  defending  themselves  had  become  more 
and  more  foolish  in  their  assertions  and  more  and  more  reck- 
less in  resisting  the  Apostle's  authority;  so  that  Paul  had 
been  obliged  to  pass  the  severest  judgment  on  two  of  them 
(i.  19  f.).1  Urgent  matters  then  called  him  to  Macedonia; 
and  he  commissioned  Timothy  who  was  with  him  at  this 
time,  to  remain  at  Ephesus  for  the  purpose  of  counteracting 
the  false  teaching  (i.  3).  He  hoped  soon  to  return  himself 
and  to  restore  things  to  perfect  order.  But  his  return  was 
unexpectedly  delayed ;  and  though  he  was  in  constant  hope 
of  being  able  to  hasten  it,  yet  it  was  just  as  likely  to  be  still 
longer  delayed  (iii.  14  f.).  Hence  he  deemed  it  necessary  to 

1  This  was  deliverance  onto  Satan,  such  as  he  had  formerly  intended 
against  the  fornicator  at  Corinth  (1  Cor.  v.  5),  and  which  he  had  now 
actually  inflicted  on  Hymeneus  and  Alexander,  because  they  slandered 
his  person  and  therefore  the  authority  given  him  by  the  Lord.  The 
former,  according  to  3  Tim.  ii.  16  ff.,  belonged,  with  a  certain  Philetns, 
to  those  whose  profane  babbling  increased  to  more  ungodly  assertions  by 
their  attempted  opposition ;  whether  the  second  was  Alexander  the  smith, 
who  afterwards  did  him  much  evil  during  his  trial  at  Borne  (2  Tim.  iv. 
14  f.),  or  whether  he  had  anything  to  do  with  the  Alexander  mentioned 
in  Acts  xix.  33  (§  20,  7),  is  quite  uncertain.  In  any  case  the  way  in 
which  both  are  spoken  of  in  the  second  epistle  does  not  imply  that  this 
one  must  have  been  written  earlier  than  our  first. 


THE   FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  TIMOTHY.  375 

write  to  Timothy  to  give  him  more  definite  instructions  re« 
garding  the  charge  entrusted  to  him ;  and  in  case  Timothy 
should  hare  to  take  his  place  at  Ephesus  for  a  still  longer 
time,  to  furnish  him  with  directions  as  to  his  teaching  and 
official  work  there  (iv.  13).  After  the  introductory  greeting 
(i.  1  f .)  he  naturally  enters  first  on  the  charge  he  had  already 
entrusted  to  his  assistant,  referring  him,  in  opposition  to  the 
erroneous  teaching  of  the  day  (i.  3-10),  to  the  essence  of 
Christian  saving  truth  as  revealed  to  him  in  his  own  expe- 
rience (i.  11-17) ;  and  pointing  to  the  sad  end  of  Hymenaeus 
and  Alexander  earnestly  enjoins  him  to  war  against  such 
errors  (i.  18  ff.).  He  then  proceeds  to  discuss  certain  points 
of  order  regarding  divine  service  that  seemed  to  him  to 
require  regulating,  in  particular  the  matter  of  Church- 
prayers  (ii.  1-7),  as  well  as  the  respective  behaviour  of  men 
and  women  at  such  time  (ii.  8  ff.)  ;  and  as  at  Corinth,  he 
distinctly  forbids  women  to  come  forward  publicly  at  divine 
service  (ii.  11-15).  Moreover  in  appointing  officers  of  the 
Church  Timothy  is  to  see  that  regard  be  had  to  entire 
blamelessness  in  moral  and  probation  in  domestic  life  (iii. 
1-16).  The  second  leading  division  of  the  epistle  enters 
upon  the  ministry  of  Timothy,  in  which  he  is  to  take  the 
place  of  the  Apostle  in  the  event  of  his  return  being  still 
longer  delayed.  The  fact  that  Paul  here  sets  out  with  the 
danger  of  ascetic  errors  threatening  the  future  (iv.  1-5)  is 
due  to  his  desire  to  check  certain  ascetic  tendencies  of  his 
pupil  in  the  beginning  (comp.  v.  23  ;  iv.  6-11)  ;  on  the  other 
hand,  owing  to  his  natural  timidity,  he  requires  to  be  ad- 
monished to  take  up  his  position  as  the  Apostle's  representa- 
tive with  joy  and  zeal,  trusting  in  the  gift  he  had  received 
(iv.  12-16)  .8  When  Paul,  in  the  act  of  giving  him  direc- 

*  We  do  not  indeed  know  how  old  Timothy  was  when  Paul  took  him 
to  be  his  assistant ;  but  we  see  from  1  Cor.  xvi.  10  f.  that  he  was  still 
young  enough  to  feel  a  certain  timidity  in  coming  forwaid  and  fear 
lest  he  should  be  despised  on  account  of  his  youth.  Even  five  to  six 


376  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

tions  concerning  his  conduct  towards  persons  of  different 
ages  in  the  Church  (v.  1  f .)  dwells  at  length  upon  a  special 
point  that  seemed  to  him  to  need  regulating  in  Ephesus, 
viz.  the  support  of  widows  (v.  3-8)  and  in  particular  their 
position  in  the  service  of  the  Church  (v.  9-16)  ;  when  he 
passes  on  to  the  claim  of  elders  distinguished  for  activity 
in  teaching  to  be  supported  by  the  Church  (v.  17  f.),  and 
again  to  the  exercise  of  discipline  with  respect  to  such  elders 
as  incur  blame  in  their  official  capacity,  as  well  as  to  the 
means  of  preventing  such  aberration  (v.  19-25)  ;  and  when 
he  returns  to  the  way  in  which  Timothy  is  to  regulate  the 
behaviour  of  slaves  (vi.  1  f.)  ;  all  this  is  in  keeping  with 
the  freedom  of  a  letter.  The  epistle  ends  as  it  began  with 
directions  as  to  Timothy's  conduct  with  respect  to  prevailing 
errors  of  doctrine.  In  delineating  these  (vi.  3  ff.)  he  is  led 
to  speak  of  the  dangers  of  covetousness  (vi.  6-10)  not  be- 
cause Timothy  had  had  anything  to  do  with  the  unfruitful 
theology  of  the  time,  of  which  Hofmann  accuses  him  without 
cause,  but  because  a  perverted  zeal  concerning  doctrine  in 
Ephesus  arose  in  many  cases  from  interested  motives.  After 
having  admonished  him,  on  the  contrary,  to  the  zealous 
practice  of  the  true  ministry  (vi.  11-16),  the  Apostle  is  led 
by  what  he  has  just  said  of  coveteousness  to  address  a 
charge  to  the  rich  (vi.  17  ff.)  by  way  of  supplement,  and 
only  then  concludes  with  a  few  powerful  words  enforcing 
the  main  business  on  account  of  which  Timothy  had  been 
left  behind  at  Ephesus,  and  with  the  benediction  (vi.  20  f.). 
2.  The  position  implied  in  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy 
cannot  be  shown  from  the  life  of  Paul  so  far  as  we  are  ac- 
quainted with  it.  We  only  know  of  one  journey  made  by  the 

years  later,  his  age  still  bore  a  certain  disproportion  to  the  leading  posi- 
tion he  had  to  take  in  relation  to  the  Church  with  its  rulers  and  mature 
men  owing  to  the  charge  with  which  he  was  entrusted  by  the  Apostle. 
That  the  exhortations  and  instructions  on  the  part  of  the  Apostle  who 
was  perhaps  twice  as  old,  are  unsuited  to  his  age,  is  an  assumption  that 
cannot  however  be  maintained. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE   TO   TIMOTHY.  377 

Apostle  from  Ephesos  to  Macedonia  (Acts  xx.  1).  He  did 
not  however  then  leave  Timothy  behind,  but  had  already- 
sent  him  forward  (to  Corinth)  through  Macedonia  (xix.  22, 
comp.  1  Cor.  iv.  17)  ;  and  even  if  Timothy  had  returned 
before  his  departure  for  Ephesus  (§  20,  7)  Paul  could  not 
have  left  him  behind  in  Ephesus,  for  he  was  with  the 
Apostle  in  Macedonia  (2  Cor.  i.  1).  If,  however,  we  assume 
that  Timothy  did  remain  at  Ephesus  for  a  time,  he  certainly 
did  not  there  await  the  return  of  the  Apostle,  which  the 
latter  cannot  have  arranged  as  in  our  epistle,  since  it  was 
his  intention  to  go  to  Corinth  there  to  winter,  and  thence 
to  travel  to  Jerusalem  (1  Cor.  xvi.  3  ff.),  a  journey  in  the 
course  of  which  he  eventually  passed  by  Ephesus  without 
stopping  (Acts  xx.  16)  .*  In  order  therefore  to  find  a  time 
more  in  keeping  with  the  situation  implied  in  i.  3,  the 
Ephesian  visit  has  been  connected  with  the  Apostle's  second 
visit  to  Corinth  mentioned  in  the  second  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  (§  19,  1),  to  which  place  the  Apostle  is  said  to 
have  travelled  through  Macedonia  during  his  three  years' 
sojourn  at  Ephesus.  This  course  has  been  adopted  by 
Schrader,  Wieseler  and  Reuss  following  the  precedent  of 
Mosbeim,  as  also  by  Eylau  (Zwr  CTironologie  der  Pastoral- 
briefe,  Landsberg  a.  d.  W,,  1873  and  1884)  who  put  this 
journey  between  the  first  and  second  Corinthian  Epistles. 
But  this  visit  to  Corinth  can  only  have  been  of  short  dura- 
tion; and  an  absence  of  uncertain  length  from  Ephesus,  such 
as  our  epistle  presupposes,  is  absolutely  precluded  by  Acts 

1  This  point  of  time,  although  formerly  accepted  without  hesitation 
after  the  example  of  Theodoret  (comp.  Michaelis,  Schmidt,  Hanlein,  Hug, 
Hemsen,  Anger,  and  even  Aberle,  Tubinger  Quartalschrift,  1873,  1),  is 
quite  impossible.  Only  by  the  most  arbitrary  perversion  of  the  sense  of 
i.  3,  has  Otto  (die  geschichtlichen  Verhaltnisse  der  Pastoralbriefe,  Leip- 
zig, 1860),  recently  followed  by  Kolliug  (der  erste  Brief  Pauli  an  Tim., 
Berlin,  1882),  been  able  to  make  out  that  Paul  on  the  contrary  remained 
at  Ephesus,  and  gave  Timothy  the  instructions  contained  in  this  epistle 
to  take  with  him  for  the  journey  of  visitation  to  Macedonia  (and  Hellas) 
mentioned  in  Acts  xix.  22. 


878  TIME   OP  THB   EPISTLE. 

xx.  31  j  nor  does  xx.  29  f.  show  any  trace  of  doctrinal  errors 
having  previously  made  their  appearance  in  Ephesus.  But 
it  is  impossible  for  Paul,  during  a  temporary  absence,  to 
have  set  his  disciple  the  task  of  reforming  abuses  that  had 
developed  under  his  own  eyes  or  of  adjusting  relations  in 
which  he  had  himself  worked  for  years.  In  addition  to 
this,  our  epistle  implies  a  longer  existence  of  the  Church 
and  more  fully  developed  forms  of  Church-life;  whereas 
the  Church  there  had  only  been  founded  during  the  second 
and  third  years'  sojourn  of  the  Apostle  in  that  place.  All 
other  combinations  that  have  been  attempted  in  the  interest 
of  the  situation  here  implied,  require  still  more  arbitrary 
hypotheses  or  perversions  of  the  sense  of  words  (1  Tim. 
i.  3).» 

3.  In  the  second  Epistle  to  Timothy  we  find  the  person  ad- 
dressed still  at  Ephesus.  Paul  had  not  therefore  returned 
thither  as  he  had  arranged,  but  had  on  the  contrary  again 
become  a  prisoner  and  been  carried  to  Rome,  where  he  lay 
in  chains  (i.  16  f.,  comp.  i.  8,  ii.  9)1  This  alone  can  be  the 

*  If  with  Flacius  we  assume  a  reference  to  the  Apostle's  departure 
from  Ephesus  narrated  in  Acts  xviii.  21,  we  must  make  np  our  minds  to 
strike  out  the  tit  Mo«e8ov/aj»  with  Marcker  (die  Stflliing  det  drei  Pcutor- 
albr.  im  Leben  d.  P.,  Meiningen,  1861,  and  Progr.  of  1871),  who  also  adopts 
the  view  of  a  residence  at  Ephesus  on  the  part  of  the  Apostle  before  his 
first  missionary  journey.  If  following  the  example  of  Grotius,  we  adopt 
with  Bertholdt  the  time  of  Acts  xx.  3  ff.  we  must,  contrary  to  the  word- 
ing of  the  Acts,  separate  Timothy  from  companionship  on  the  journey, 
or  with  Matthics  and  Book  (Komm.,  v.  1840,  1879)  make  the  ro/><v6/u«rof 
refer  to  Timothy,  by  which  however  we  gain  nothing;  for  at  that  time 
Paul  had  no  intention  of  returning  to  Ephesus  (comp.  Acts  xx.  16).  The 
Fame  tbing  applies  to  Sohneokenburger  and  Bdttger,  who  tried  to  change 
the  Trpofffj.c'iixu.  into  Tpoantlvas,  and  to  pat  the  epistle  at  one  of  the  stations 
on  the  journey  to  Jerusalem.  According  to  Paulus,  for  whom  Otto  led 
the  way  by  his  perversion  of  i.  3,  the  epistle  is  even  said  to  have  been 
written  during  Paul's  imprisonment  at  Caesarea. 

1  Hence  there  can  be  no  question  of  transferring  the  epistle  to 
Caesarea,  as  Thiersch  and  Bdttger  attempted  to  do.  The  Roman  name* 
moreover,  in  iv.  21,  are  in  favour  of  Borne.  It  cannot  indeed  be  directly 
proved  that  the  person  addressed  was  in  Ephesus;  which  has  been 


THE   SECOND  EPISTLE   10   TIMOTHY.  379 

cause  of  the  deep  despondency  of  Timothy  implied  in  i.  8, 
The  captivity  of  the  Apostle  cannot  have  been  of  very  short 
duration,  for  the  reason  that  intelligence  of  it  had  already 
penetrated  to  Ephesus.  Paul  had  already  called  on  several 
who  were  in  Asia  Minor,  as  for  example  Phygellus  and  Her- 
mogenes,  to  come  to  Rome  and  appear  for  him ;  but  they  had 
refused,  probably  from  fear  of  being  implicated  in  his  suit. 
On  the  other  hand  the  Ephesian  Onesiphorus  had  of  his 
own  accord  sought  him  out  and  refreshed  him  exceedingly 
in  his  bonds  (i.  15  ff.).  Paul  had  already  made  his  first 
defence,  during  which  no  man  stood  by  him ;  and  Alexander 
the  Ephesian,  against  whom  he  finds  it  necessary  to  warn 
Timothy,  had  by  his  evidence  that  gave  the  lie  to  the 
Apostle's  words,  done  him  much  evil  (iv.  14  ff.).  This  time 
the  Lord  had  wonderfully  helped  him  (iv.  17),  but  he  looked 
forward  to  certain  martyrdom  (iv.  6-8).  The  accounts  re- 
ceived of  Timothy  (probably  through  Onesiphorus)  are  very 
sad ;  he  seems  to  have  lost  all  spirit  and  pleasure  in  working 
for  the  cause  of  the  gospel  (i.  6  f.).  Hence  Paul  resolves 
to  send  him  another  letter.  He  begins,  after  the  intro- 
ductory greeting  (i.  1  f.),  by  thanking  God  for  all  he  had 
hitherto  heard  of  Timothy's  unfeigned  faith  inherited  from 
his  mother  and  grandmother,  and  Jongs  to  hear  more  that  he 
may  be  filled  with  joy  (i.  2-6) ;  making  this  the  basis  of  an 
exhortation  to  Timothy  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  to 
allow  his  gift  no  longer  to  lie  idle  but,  trusting  in  Him  who 
has  done  everything  for  our  salvation  and  will  therefore  also 
give  us  the  necessary  strength,  not  to  be  ashamed  of  him  and 
of  his  bonds,  but  to  suffer  with  him  for  the  gospel  (i.  7-11). 

doubted  by  Spitta  (Stud.  u.  Krit.t  1878,  4),  who  puts  him  in  Derbe.  But 
eince  the  services  of  Onesiphorus,  well  known  to  Timothy,  were  rendered 
at  Ephesus,  and  Timothy  is  directed  to  salute  his  household  (i.  18,  comp. 
iv.  19) ;  since  Hymenaeus  of  1  Tim.  i.  20  is  mentioned  (ii.  17),  while 
greetings  are  sent  (iv.  19)  to  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  who  to  our  knowledge 
dwelt  at  Ephesus  (1  Cor.  xvi.  19),  this  is  the  only  probable  conclusion ; 
and  iv.  12  is  by  no  means  at  variance  with  it. 


380  ANALYSIS  OP  THE  EPISTLE. 

He  points  out  how  he  himself  was  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel 
(i.  12-14),  and  how  Onesiphorus,  as  contrasted  with  so  many 
others,  was  not  ashamed  of  his  chains  (i.  15-18).  Timothy 
is  not  indeed  to  stand  alone  in  this  warfare,  but  is  to  place 
faithful  teachers  at  his  side,  of  whom  as  of  himself  the  axiom 
holds  good,  that  the  service  of  the  Lord  is  not  free  from 
suffering  (ii.  1-7) ;  moreover  he  is  to  remember  that  the 
gospel  for  which  Paul  suffers  proclaims  the  Risen  One  who 
•will  raise  up  His  true  followers  to  live  with  Him,  as  an  en- 
couragement to  the  elect  to  the  same  perseverance  (ii.  8-13). 
He  is  to  put  all  those  who  desire  to  help  him  in  teaching  also 
in  remembrance  of  these  things,  and  earnestly  to  warn  them 
against  useless  and  pernicious  strife  about  words,  setting 
them  an  example  of  true  teaching,  since  contention  with 
those  who  have  fallen  into  the  doctrinal  errors  of  the  time 
only  leads  them  to  greater  perversity  of  assertion  and  to  the 
subverting  of  the  faith  (ii.  14-18) ;  while  true  union  with  the 
unchanging  genuine  Foundation  of  the  Church  can  only  be 
shown  by  zeal  in  self-purification  and  preparation  to  be  a 
vessel  meet  for  the  Master's  use  (ii.  19-21).  Hence  he  is  to 
flee  the  youthful  lusts  of  emulation  and  strife,  and  as  be- 
comes the  servant  of  God,  to  endeavour  with  gentleness  to 
lead  those  who  are  carried  away  by  the  errors  of  the  time,  to 
repent  and  to  abandon  their  evil  ways  (ii.  22-26) .  Where, 
however,  this  was  visibly  a  sign  of  immorality  and  false 
piety  such  as  should  prevail  more  and  more  in  the  future, 
and  there  was  therefore  no  prospect  of  breaking  their  con- 
scious resistance  to  the  truth ;  in  such  cases  he  was  to  turn 
entirely  away  from  them  (iii.  1-9)  and  only  hold  fast  for  his 
own  part  to  the  course  he  had  taken  at  his  conversion  in 
imitation  of  the  Apostle,  a  course  also  involving  the  same 
suffering  (iii.  10-13) ;  which  the  teaching  he  had  received 
and  the  Holy  Scripture  he  had  known  from  childhood  could 
and  would  enable  him  to  do  (iii.  14-17).  Then  follows  the 
solemn  exhortation  Paul  had  in  view  from  the  beginning 


THE   SECOND  EPISTLE   TO  TIMOTHY.  381 

(i.  6  ff.),  admonishing  him  faithfully  to  fulfil  his  calling  as 
a  preacher  of  the  gospel  even  amid  growing  opposition ; 
and  concluding  by  a  reference  to  his  own  joy  in  face  of 
the  martyrdom  before  him  (iv.  1-8).  This  exhortation 
manifestly  forms  the  testament  of  the  Apostle  to  his 
Timothy  in  case  the  latter  should  never  meet  him  again  in 
this  life ;  but  it  is  his  earnest  wish  to  see  him  once  again. 
Hence  the  charge  to  Timothy  to  come  to  him  speedily, 
arising  out  of  communications  as  to  his  position  in  Rome 
(iv.  9-18),  is  again  urgently  repeated,  after  some  messages 
of  greeting  (iv.  19  f£.).  Salutations  from  the  Christians 
at  Rome  and  the  usual  benediction  form  the  conclusion 
(iv.  21  f.). 

We  see  from  the  personal  matter  at  the  close  (iv.  10-13),  that  only 
Luke  was  with  Paul  when  he  wrote  the  epistle ;  but  he  can  only  have 
arrived  a  short  time  before,  for  he  was  not  present  at  Paul's  first  hearing 
(iv.  16).  Of  Demas,  whom  he  found  with  him  in  Csesarea  (Col.  iv.  14 ; 
Philem.  24),  he  complains  that  he  had  forsaken  him  for  love  of  the 
world,  and  had  gone  to  Thessalonica.  Titus,  who  had  formerly  been  his 
companion  at  Jerusalem  (Gal.  ii.  1,  3)  and  had  rendered  him  such  im- 
portant services  in  his  dealings  with  Corinth  (2  Cor.  vii.-ix.),  had  gone 
to  Dalmatia ;  Crescuus,  of  whom  we  have  no  knowledge,  to  Galatia. 
Manifestly  therefore  Paul  feels  isolated  and  longs  for  his  favourite 
pupil.  Timothy  can  set  out  at  once,  because  Paul  has  sent  Tychicus  to 
Ephesus  to  relieve  him.  Moreover,  he  is  to  bring  Mark  with  him,  for 
whom  Paul  has  urgent  commissions,  and  to  whom  therefore  he  seems 
to  be  fully  reconciled  (comp.  Col.  iv.  10).  Timothy  is  also  to  bring  with 
him  a  cloak  and  books  left  by  Paul  with  Carpus  at  Troas.  The  way  in 
which  Erastus  and  Trophimus,  persons  from  whom  he  is  separated,  are 
casually  mentioned  when  sending  greetings  to  Ephesus,  is  peculiar  (iv. 
20).  Since  the  latter  was  an  Ephesian  (Acts  xx.  4,  xxi.  29),  and  the 
former,  whether  identical  with  the  Chamberlain  of  the  city  of  Corinth  or 
not  (Bom.  xvi.  23),  was  sent  out  from  Ephesus  (Acts  xix.  22),  and  there- 
fore had  close  relations  with  that  place,  both  seem  to  have  accompanied 
the  Apostle  from  Ephesus  (comp.  1  Tim.  i.  3) ;  the  notice  here  appearing 
to  be  intended  simply  as  an  explanation  why  Paul  sends  them  no  greet- 
ing. He  does  not  know  if  they  are  there,  for  Erastus  remained  behind 
at  Corinth  and  he  himself  had  left  Trophimus  who  wished  to  accompany 
him  still  further,  sick  at  Miletus. 


382  TIME   OP  THE   EPISTLE. 

4.  This  epistle  also  cannot  be  assigned  to  the  Roman  cap- 
tivity with  which  we  are  acquainted,  simply  because  it  is 
inconceivable  that  Timothy,  who  had  been  with  the  fettered 
Apostle  in  Coesarea  and  Rome  (Col.  i.  1 ;  Phil.  i.  1),  should 
now  all  at  once  be  ashamed  of  his  chains,  as  if  they  were  an 
indication  that  he  had  been  forsaken  by  God  (2  Tim.  i.  8). 
Yet  all  who  put  the  death  of  the  Apostle  in  the  first  Roman 
captivity  (§  26,  7),  must  adopt  this  time.  Because  Timothy, 
who  had  been  ordered  to  Rome  according  to  our  epistle,  was 
with  the  Apostle  (Phil.  i.  1),  it  seemed  most  natural  to  pat 
the  epistle  in  the  beginning  of  the  captivity,  at  all  events 
before  that  to  the  Philippians;  and  this  is  what  Schmidt, 
Matthies,  Otto,  Reuss,  and  Beck,  following  Baronius,  Lardncr, 
and  others,  have  actually  done.  But  this  is  quite  incon- 
sistent with  the  presentiment  of  death  expressed  here  so 
clearly,  which  Otto  alone  has  succeeded  in  explaining  away ; 
nor  does  the  Philippian  Epistle,  in  which  the  Apostle 
speaks  so  differently,  contain  any  trace  of  the  experiences 
mentioned  in  our  epistle  (i.  15-18,  iv.  14-18),  notwithstand- 
ing its  abundant  information  respecting  Roman  relations. 
If  for  this  reason  we  put  it  with  most  of  the  older  ex- 
positors (comp.  also  Hemsen,  Wicseler)  at  the  end  of  the 
captivity  and  after  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  we  are 
still  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  Timothy,  who  was  to  have 
gone  to  Philippi  only  when  the  Apostle's  case  was  decided, 
in  order  to  bring  him  news  from  that  city  (Phil.  ii.  19-23), 
can  now  be  in  Epliesus,  while  the  trial  is  still  pending.  But 
whatever  explanation  may  be  given  to  these  relations  by 
combinations  more  and  more  artificial  in  character,  it  is  plain 
from  iv.  13,  20,  that  Paul  had  recently  been  at  Troas  and 
Miletus  probably  also  in  Corinth,  although  he  had  touched 
at  none  of  these  places  on  his  transport-journey  (Acts 
xxvii.).  If  we  assume  a  reference  to  the  journey  to  Jeru- 
salem, that  certainly  led  from  Corinth  by  Troaa  and  Miletus, 
we  cannot  understand  why  the  Apostle  four  or  five  years 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  TITUS.  383 

later  should  tell  Timothy  who  was  his  companion  on  that 
journey,  that  Trophimus,  who  moreover  was  with  the 
Apostle  in  Jerusalem,  was  at  that  time  left  "behind  sick  at 
Miletus;  nor  why  he  only  now  sends  for  the  things  he  had 
then  left  at  Troas.  All  the  combining  ingenuity  of  apologists 
has  so  far  failed  to  do  anything  whatever  towards  the  actual 
removal  of  these  impossibilities.1 

5.  The  Epistle  to  Titus  implies  that  Paul  had  shortly  before 
been  in  Crete;  but  not  that  he  had  worked  there  as  a 
missionary.  Christian  Churches  must  already  have  been  in 
existence  there  for  a  considerable  time,  since  i.  6  requires 
probation  in  Christian  family  life ;  and  since  Paul  left  his 
Gentile- Christian  assistant  there  in  order  to  regulate  the 
affairs  of  the  Church  as  he  desired  (i.  5),  thus  including  it 
in  his  missionary  sphere,  the  Churches  there  must  have  been 
essentially  Gentile- Christian,  drawn  from  the  native  popula- 
tion (comp.  i.  12  f.).  This  naturally  does  not  imply  that 
there  were  no  converted  Jews  there  even  among  the  teachers 
of  the  Church  (i.  10) -1  On  visiting  the  island,  Paul  had 

1  Criticism  on  the  other  hand  maintains  that  the  pseudonymous 
writer  might  certainly  have  had  the  journey  to  Jerusalem  in  his  mind 
(Acts  zx.),  but  was  unconscious  of  the  difficulties  raised  by  transferring 
the  epistle  to  the  captivity  mentioned  in  Acts  xxviii.  30  f.  But  if  he 
drew  hie  knowledge  of  the  relations  into  which  he  transfers  himself, 
solely  from  the  Acts  and  the  Pauline  Epistles,  it  must  have  been  an  easy 
matter  for  him  to  have  found  more  abundant  and  convenient  points  of 
attachment,  and  to  have  avoided  such  transparent  contradictions,  for 
which  no  motive  can  be  shown. 

1  We  must  not,  however,  infer  that  there  were  many  such  in  Crete,  for 
the  passage  only  states  that  there  were  (in  Crete)  many  avriXtyovret 
(ver.  9),  characterising  them  as  unruly  talkers  and  deceivers,  and  adding 
that  the  Jewish-Christian  &t>Ti\tyovTes  were  especially  unruly  (oomp.  Bom. 
x.  21),  which  is  easy  to  understand,  because  according  to  i.  14,  the  doc- 
trinal errors  rested  on  Jewish  myths  with  which  they  naturally  believed 
they  were  best  acquainted.  On  the  other  hand  i.  11  of  course  refers  to 
the  Cretan  AvriMyorres,  as  afrruv  and  afrrotis  in  ver.  12  show,  sinco  only  in 
that  case  could  the  Apostle  appeal  to  their  national  character  for  their 
deceptive  and  avaricious  conduct,  and  specify  the  myths  in  which  they 
dealt  as  Jewish,  in  opposition  to  those  of  Crete.  If  this  simple  explana- 


384  SITUATION  OF  THE  EPISTLB. 

found  suspicious  aberrations  of  doctrine;  and  seems  in  at- 
tempting to  put  them  down  by  his  authority,  only  to  have 
called  forth  violent  opposition  especially  from  the  Jewish- 
Christian  teachers  (i.  10).  He  therefore  deemed  it  advisable, 
since  he  himself  was  obliged  to  depart,  to  leave  Titus  behind, 
and  thought  he  could  best  overcome  these  errors  by  the 
presbyterian  organization  which  the  Churches  still  lacked, 
especially  if  in  appointing  bishops  regard  were  had  not  only 
to  blamelessness  and  proved  morality  (i.  6  ff.),  but  also  to 
capacity  for  teaching  (i.  9).  We  do  not  know  how  long  it 
was  after  leaving  the  island  that  he  wrote  to  Titus  ;  for  it  is 
certainly  an  error  to  suppose  that  he  would  have  sent  him 
written  instructions  as  soon  as  possible,  since  he  had  already 
given  him  verbal  directions  (i.  5).  On  the  contrary  the 
occasion  of  his  writing  was  altogether  external.  Zenas,  the 
former  teacher  of  Jewish  law,  and  Apollos,  his  old  Corin- 
thian fellow- worker,  were  travelling  by  Crete ;  and  Paul  took 
advantage  of  the  need  for  commending  them  to  the  assistance 
of  the  Churches  (iii.  13  f.),  to  give  them  a  letter  to  Titus, 
in  which  he  enforced  the  charge  he  had  given  him  at  his 
departure  by  new  reasons;  also  furnishing  his  pupil  with 
additional  directions  of  various  kinds  for  his  work  there.  It 
certainly  was  his  intention  to  relieve  him  by  sending  Artemas 
or  Tychicus ;  and  he  directed  him  in  this  case  to  go  to  Nico- 
polis,  where  he  proposed  to  pass  the  winter  (iii.  12) ;  but 
apart  from  the  fact  that  Paul  best  knew  with  how  little  cer- 
tainty he  could  calculate  on  carrying  out  such  far-reaching 
plans,  Titus  had  hitherto  had  sufficient  time  for  following 
the  instructions  of  the  Apostle.  Still  more  fully  than  in  the 
Epistles  to  Timothy  does  Paul  IB  the  inscription  put  forward 
the  service  of  his  apostleship  as  his  reason  for  turning  to  his 
spiritual  child  with  an  official  writing  (i.  1-4),  going  on  to 

tion  of  the  matter  be  darkened  by  obscure  exegesis,  it  should  at  least  not 
be  made  a  mark  of  spuriousuess;  since  we  fail  to  see  why  a  pseudonymous 
writer  should  move  entirely  in  doubtful  contradictions. 


THE  PASTOBAL  EPISTLES.  835 

speak  of  the  charge  he  had  given  for  the  organization  of  the 
Churches  (i.  5-9)  and  assigning  the  doctrinal  errors  that 
prevailed  in  Crete  as  its  reason  (i.  10-16).  He  directs  him 
as  to  the  way  in  which  he  is  to  exhort  those  of  different  ages 
and  especially  slaves  (ii.  1-10)  on  the  basis  of  sound  doctrine 
whose  morally  fruitful  character  he  expressly  develops  in 
detail  (ii.  11-15).  He  then  tells  him  to  put  the  Churches 
in  mind  of  their  true  relation  to  the  ruling  powers  and  the 
non- Christian  world  in  general,  for  which  their  own  ex- 
perience must  be  their  guide  (iii.  1-8) ;  and  finally  once  more 
impresses  on  Timothy  the  true  course  to  take  with  respect  to 
errors  of  doctrine  (iii.  9  ff.).  Personal  matter  and  saluta- 
tions form  the  conclusion  (iii.  12-15). 

6.  The  situation  which  this  epistle  presupposes  does  not 
at  all  fit  in  with  what  we  know  of  the  Apostle's  life.  So  far 
as  we  know,  Paul  touched  only  once  at  Crete,  on  his  trans- 
port-journey to  Rome  (Acts  xxvii.  8-13).  But  Titus  i.  5 
cannot  refer  to  this  time,  as  Grotius  supposed ;  for  the  Acta 
know  nothing  of  a  greeting  of  the  Churches  in  that  place, 
and  in  no  case  could  Paul  as  a  prisoner  have  become  so  accu- 
rately acquainted  with  their  condition  as  our  epistle  implies. 
Nor  was  Titus  at  that  time  in  his  company;  and  so  far  as  our 
knowledge  of  his  subsequent  life  reaches,  Paul  was  never 
again  in  a  position  to  arrange  his  place  of  abode  so  freely  as 
he  does  in  iii.  12,  but  was  in  bonds,  of  which  our  epistle  con- 
tains no  hint.  It  was  necessary  therefore  to  try,  as  Schmidt, 
Schrader  and  Anger  did,  to  combine  the  journey  to  Crete, 
not  mentioned  in  the  Acts,  with  the  second  visit  to  Corinth, 
regarding  which  they  are  also  silent ;  and  to  which  recourse 
had  already  been  had  to  explain  the  situation  implied  in  the 
first  Epistle  to  Timothy  (No.  2).1  How  this  was  made  to 
agree  in  detail  with  the  combination  made  for  the  first 

1  Capellus  has  transferred  the  Cretan  journey  to  the  second  missionary- 
one,  and  has  made  it  start  from  Syria  and  Cilicia  (Acts  xv.  41),  Michaelia 
from  Corinth  (xviii.  1-8),  while  others  make  the  Apostle  visit  Crete  on 

C  C 


386  COMPOSED   AFTER  THE   APOSTLE'S  DELIVERANCE. 

Epistle  to  Timothy,  whether  the  Apostle  was  supposed  to 
have  gone  by  Corinth  to  Crete,  as  Wieseler  and  Otto  main- 
tained ;  or  the  reverse,  as  held  by  Reuss  and  Eylau,  who  had 
no  hesitation  in  making  the  journey  mentioned  in  1  Tim.  i.  3 
lead  through  Crete  to  Macedonia,  is  naturally  a  matter  of 
indifference.  It  is  certain  that  by  connecting  another  visit 
to  Crete  with  that  journey  from  Ephesus,  and  a  mission  to 
Illyria  with  the  plan  of  wintering  in  Nicopolis,  a  combina- 
tion made  almost  unavoidable  by  Titus  iii.  12,  we  become 
more  and  more  perplexed  as  to  the  statement  of  the  Apostle 
that  he  had  worked  in  Ephesus  uninterruptedly  for  the  space 
of  three  years  (Acts  xx.  31).  It  is  equally  certain  that 
Titus,  who  is  said  to  have  remained  behind  in  Crete,  was 
with  the  Apostle  towards  the  end  of  his  stay  at  Ephesus, 
therefore  about  Pentecost  (§  20,  7),  although  he  was  not  to 
be  relieved  until  the  autumn ;  while  Paul  intended  to  pass 
the  winter  of  that  year  not  in  Nicopolis  but  at  Corinth 
(1  Cor.  xvi.  5).s 

7.  It  may  nevertheless  be  conceded  that  owing  to  the  in- 

the  journey  from  Corinth  to  Ephesus  (xviii.  18  f.),  as  do  Hag,  Hemsen, 
Schott,  or  on  the  so-called  third  missionary  journey  from  Galatia  (xviii. 
23),  as  do  Credner  and  Ncudeoker.  But  so  far  as  we  know,  Paul  first 
came  in  contact  with  Apollos  (Tit.  iii.  13)  daring  his  abode  of  several 
years  at  Ephesus  (1  Cor.  xvi.  12),  with  Tychioas  first  in  Acts  xz.  4,  while 
we  have  no  knowledge  of  Titus  having  been  with  the  Apostle  at  any  of 
these  times ;  and  the  plan  of  wintering  at  Nicopolis  (iii.  12)  cannot  be 
put  into  any  of  the  journeys  of  that  time  with  which  we  are  acquainted, 
even  if  we  suppose  the  Cilician  Nicopolis  to  be  meant,  which  is  highly 
improbable. 

*  An  appeal  to  the  alteration  of  his  plans  of  travel  is  of  no  avail,  since 
such  had  already  taken  place  when  he  gave  this  promise  to  the  Corinthians 
(5  20, 1).  Hence  Blau  (de  genuine  eorum  verb,  indole,  quibiu  P.  ep.  ad  Tit. 
tcr.  prcef.,  1846),  following  Petavios  and  Hammond,  brought  the  Cretan 
journey  down  to  the  Apostle's  'stay  in  Macedonia  (Acts  xz.  1),  where 
Titos  came  to  him  from  Corinth,  only  to  be  immediately  sent  back  agaiu 
(2  Cor.  vii.  8),  so  that  he  cannot  then  have  been  left  in  Crete,  irrespective 
of  the  fact  that  Paul  would  not  have  taken  Crete  twice  on  his  journey, 
at  a  time  when  everything  drove  him  to  Corinth.  Mat  tines,  following 
Baronius  and  Lightfoot,  comes  down  even  to  the  winter  abode  in  Hellaa 


THE   PASTOEAL  EPISTLES.  387 

completeness  and  inaccuracy  of  the  Acts,  it  is  not  in  itself 
impossible  that  the  difficulties  of  all  former  combinations 
may  be  overcome  by  new  and  ingenious  hypotheses ;  how- 
ever strange  it  may  appear  that  the  Acts  which  afford  the 
necessary  points  of  attachment  for  all  other  Pauline  Epistles, 
should  in  this  case  throw  us  back  on  mere  hypothesis. 
Even  that  possibility  however  is  definitely  excluded  by  the 
striking  affinity  which  these  epistles  bear  to  one  another, 
and  which  is  only  consistent  with  their  genuineness  in  case 
of  their  having  been  composed  much  about  the  same  time  ; 
but  the  second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  even  if  it  be  placed  at 
the  very  beginning  of  the  Roman  captivity,  is  separated  by 
more  than  three  years  from  the  time  in  which  at  the  earliest 
a  place  can  be  sought  for  the  other  epistles.  Moreover,  in 
proportion  to  the  affinity  of  doctrinal  peculiarity  and  mode 
of  expression  by  which  the  older  epistles  are  characterized, 
does  second  Timothy  differ  from  them ;  yet  all  the  former 
combinations  put  this  epistle  so  close  to  the  other  captivity- 
epistles,  both  of  which  are  even  put  with  the  Roman  and 
Corinthian  Epistles,  that  the  difference  is  as  inexplicable  as 
the  resemblance.  But  in  the  doctrinal  errors,  as  well  as  in 
the  needs  of  Church-life  which  they  presuppose,  the  same 
phenomenon  occurs.  These  have  no  analogy  in  the  older 
epistles,  and  are  moreover  so  closely  allied  to  one  another 
that  they  point  of  necessity  beyond  that  time  of  the  Apostle's 
life  with  which  we  are  acquainted.  It  is  therefore  firmly 
established  that  if  our  epistles  are  to  be  pronounced  genuine, 
they  can  only  belong  to  a  period  of  the  Apostle's  life  lying 
beyond  that  with  which  we  are  acquainted.  And  since  we 
have  seen,  that  although  Paul's  release  from  his  Roman 
captivity  cannot  be  historically  proved,  it  cannot  on  the 

(Acts  xx.  2),  where  Paul  could  not  have  undertaken  a  sea-journey,  nor 
planned  a  residence  at  Nicopolis  for  the  following  •winter,  since  he 
intended  to  set  out  at  once  on  his  Roman  journey  after  visiting  Jeru- 
salem. 


388  COMPOSED  AFTER  THE  APOSTLE'S  DELIVERANCE. 

other  hand  be  contested  (§  26,  7),  the  possibility  remains 
that  our  epistles  are  the  sole  monuments  and  evidences  of  a 
life-period  subsequent  to  this  captivity  that  have  come  down 
to  ns.  There  would  be  no  object  in  attempting  from  these 
memorials  to  construct  a  connected  life  of  the  Apostle  during 
this  time ;  since  we  are  absolutely  without  knowledge  as  to 
how  far  sufficient  material  for  such  an  attempt  is  supplied 
by  the  events  accidentally  touched  npon.  We  only  know 
from  his  transport- journey  (Acts  xxviij  how  easily  Crete 
might  be  taken  in  travelling  from  the  West  to  the  East; 
so  that  the  visit  to  Crete  implied  in  Tit.  i.  5  may  have 
been  made  on  the  journey  immediately  following  Paul's 
release.  We  know  that  during  his  four  years'  imprison- 
ment he  had  the  intention  of  seeking  out  once  more  the 
Churches  of  anterior  Asia  and  Macedonia  (Philem.  22 ;  Phil, 
ii.  24).  The  fact  that  according  to  1  Tim.  i.  3  he  had  been 
in  Ephesus  and  had  set  out  for  Macedonia  is  quite  consistent 
•with  this ;  for  there  is  no  reason  why  he  should  not  have 
visited  the  Phrygian  Churches  before  that  of  Ephesus.  It  is 
certainly  not  improbable  that  ho  also  paid  another  visit  to 
Corinth  from  Macedonia;  and  the  circumstance  of  his  having 
touched  at  Troas  and  Miletus  (2  Tim.  iv.  13,  20)  implies  the 
same  coast-journey  that  we  have  already  seen  him  make  in 
these  waters.  From  what  station  on  this  journey  he  an- 
nounced the  postponement  of  his  return  to  Ephesus  (1  Tim. 
iii.  14  f .)  and  made  arrangements  for  spending  the  next  winter 
at  Crete  (Tit.  iii.  12),1  we  know  as  little,  as  the  time,  place, 
and  circumstances  of  the  new  arrest  and  transportation  to 
Rome  that  frustrated  all  his  plans.  It  is  only  certain  that 


1  When  old  manuscripts  and  versions  and  the  Fathers  date  the  first 
Epistle  to  Timothy  from  Laodicca,  they  were  probably  thought  to  refer 
to  the  epistle  mentioned  in  Col.  iv.  16,  as  Theophylact  shows.  Others, 
as  the  Synopsis  and  Euthalius,  assume  that  it  WAR  written  in  Macedonia. 
The  subscription  of  the  Epistle  to  Titus  which  dates  from  Nicopolis  resta 
on  an  evident  misunderstanding  of  iii.  12. 


THE   PASTOEAL  EPISTLES.  389 

when  the  latter  part  of  the  summer  had  arrived,  he  was  again 
a  prisoner  in  Rome,  and  earnestly  entreated  Timothy  to  come 
to  him  before  the  mare  clausum  (2  Tim.  iv.  21). 

The  very  diverse  and  therefore  mutually  destructive  hypotheses  by 
means  of  which  it  has  been  sought  to  combine  the  data  of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  into  a  finished  picture  of  the  Apostle's  life,  are  utterly  valueless. 
If  we  assume  with  Huther  (Komm.,  4  Aufl.,  1876)  that  Paul  was  set  free 
in  the  spring  of  63  and  perished  in  the  persecution  under  Hero  in  July, 
64,  only  five  quarter-years,  it  is  true,  remain  to  be  disposed  of ;  but  even 
these  fully  suffice  to  cover  the  data  actually  supplied  by  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  unless  with  him  we  vainly  strive  to  find  a  place  within  tbia 
period  of  time  for  the  wintering  in  Nicopolis,  which  however  was  only  a 
plan  most  probably  frustrated  by  his  arrest,  or  even  for  the  journey  into 
Spain  that  Paul  had  evidently  already  abandoned  (§  26,  6).s  But  if  we 
suppose  that  the  Apostle  was  released  in  the  spring  of  64  and  did  not 
perish  in  that  year's  persecution  under  Nero,  there  is  room  enough  in 
the  four  years  of  Nero's  reign  still  remaining  not  only  for  the  journey 
into  Spain ;  but  even,  with  Hofmann,  for  one  into  Syria  (on  account  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  he  ascribes  to  Paul  and  dates  from 
Antioch).  Even  in  this  case,  however,  it  is  very  improbable,  according 
to  Phil.  ii.  24,  that  he  went  first  to  Spain,  as  Guericke  and  Bleek  hold ; 
but  whether  he  went  first  to  Crete  as  Laurent  maintains,  or  only  went 
there  afterwards  from  Ephesus  (Macedonia),  is  altogether  uncertain.  If 
he  were  allowed  a  still  longer  interval,  as  is  by  no  means  impossible,  it 
must  have  been  before  the  composition  of  our  epistles  that  are  undoubt- 
edly near  together  in  point  of  time.  But  whether  first  Timothy  was 
written  before  or  after  Titus — a  matter  of  complete  indifference  in  case 
of  their  genuineness — the  plan  of  wintering  at  Nicopolis  by  no  means 
precludes  the  possibility  of  an  antecedent  return  to  Ephesus,  of  which 
Paul  held  ont  a  prospect  to  Timothy.3 

1  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  scarcely  probable  that  Paul,  who  according 
to  2  Tim.  iv.  6  looked  forward  so  definitely  in  the  autumn  to  martyrdom, 
should  have  remained  alive  until  the  summer  of  the  following  year, 
without  any  memorial  of  this  time  having  come  down  to  us  ;  or  even,  as 
Huther  maintains,  that  he  should  in  the  spring  of  the  following  year 
have  invited  Timothy  to  come  to  Home  speedily,  before  the  winter  set 
in  (iv.  9,  21). 

3  Nothing  leads  us  to  suppose  that  the  winter  for  which  he  summons 
Timothy  to  Eome  is  any  other  than  that  which  he  originally  intended  to 
spend  at  Nicopolis.  On  the  contrary,  the  journey  of  Titus  to  Dalmatia 
(iv.  10)  might  easily  consist  with  the  fact  that  he  had  sought  the  Apostle 
in  vain  in  the  Illyrian  Nicopolis  to  which  he  had  summoned  him  (Tit. 
iu.  12). 


390 


§  28.    THE  PECULIARITIES  OP  THB  PASTORAL  EPISTLES. 

1.  It  is  characteristic  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  in  the  first 
place,  that  they  combat  certain  doctrinal  errors  of  which  we 
find  no  trace  elsewhere  in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  but  which 
were  at  that  time  in  the  air  as  it  were ;  since  we  meet  with 
them  in  Crete  as  well  as  in  Ephesos.1  It  was  not  a  question 
of  actual  error  that  denied  or  combated  the  truth  of  salva- 
tion, a  fact  that  has  constantly  been  ignored  or  directly 
contradicted;  but  of  teaching  strange  things  that  had  nothing 
to  do  with  saving  truth  (1  Tim.  i.  3,  vi.  3),  of  foolish  and 
presumptuous  inquiry  (2  Tim.  ii.  23 ;  Tit.  iii.  9 ;  comp.  i.  4) 
respecting  things  of  which  nothing  is  or  can  actually  be 
known  (1  Tim.  i.  7,  vi.  4),  which  moreover  are  altogether  un- 
profitable and  empty  of  truth  (Tit.  iii.  9),  so  that  they  lead 
only  to  vain  talk  (/uarcuAoyia,  1  Tim.  i.  6,  comp.  /AaraioXoyot, 
Tit.  i.  10),  to  profane  babbling,  destitute  of  all  true  reli- 
gious value  ({tc(3i}Xai  Kevo<t>u>v'iait  1  Tim.  vi.  20 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  16). 
Those  who  occupy  themselves  with  such  things  think  by 
this  means  to  attain  to  and  participate  in  knowledge  of 
an  exceptionally  high  character  (1  Tim.  vi.  20,  i/revSuvo/xo? 
yvwo-is)  ;  but  it  is  only  pride  that  intoxicates  (vi.  4),  and 
the  idea  of  a  higher  knowledge  that  carries  them  away 


1  That  the  erroristB  of  the  Epistle  to  Titus  stand  quite  outside  the 
Church,  as  Credncr  and  Mangold  assume ;  or  even  that  all  the  errorists 
of  our  epistles  were  pure  Jews  who  mixed  their  theology  with  Hellenic 
wisdom  as  Otto  supposed,  can  by  no  means  he  proved.  It  is  just  as 
impossible  to  follow  Thicrsch  and  Hilgenfeld  in  distinguishing  hetero- 
geneous categories  in  the  phenomena  attacked  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles, 
such  as  Pharisaic  Judaists  and  spiritualizing  Onostics  ;  or  unevangclical 
narrow-mindedness  and  unchristian  latitudinariauism  (comp.  Stirm, 
Jahrb.  fiir  deuttche  Theol,  1872,  1).  Wiesinger  (Komm.,  1850)  and 
Hofmann  have  done  most  towards  a  correct  apprehension  of  the  doc- 
trinal errors,  although  even  the  latter,  misled  by  a  distorted  view  of 
them,  thought  it  necessary  to  make  a  distinction  between  the  pheno- 
mena mentioned  in  2  Tim.  ii.  17,  iii  AQ.,  and  the  errorists  elsewher* 
attacked. 


TfiE   PECULIARITIES   OF   THE   PASTOBAL   EPISTLES.  391 

(2  Tim.  ii.  26)  .2  Profane  and  foolish  Jewish  myths  seem 
always  to  be  the  proper  subject  of  these  speculations  (1  Tim. 
iv.  7 ;  comp.  i.  4 ;  2  Tim.  iv.  4  ;  Tit.  i.  14),  and  endless  genea- 
logies (1  Tim.  i.  4 ;  Tit.  iii.  9)  such  as  are  presented  in  the 
Old  Testament ;  an  attempt  being  made  to  gain  all  kinds  of 
mysterious  wisdom  by  allegorizing  them;  even  the  Thora 
with  its  legal  definitions  must  have  been  turned  to  account  in 
the  same  way,  since  legal  doctrine  and  strivings  about  the  law 
which  are  incidentally  referred  to  (1  Tim.  i.  7 ;  Tit.  iii.  9), 
cannot,  according  to  the  context,  have  gone  beyond  a  purely 
theoretical  treatment  of  the  law.3  But  no  characteristic 
error  of  doctrine  is  mentioned,  since  the  assertion  (2  Tim.  ii. 
18)  that  the  resurrection  had  already  passed  is  only  adduced 
as  an  example  of  those  ungodly  statements  to  which  indivi- 
duals expressly  mentioned  by  name  had  been  driven  when 

'  It  is  of  course  only  possible  to  fall  into  these  things  if  unaffected 
love  of  truth  and  simple  faith  be  lost  (1  Tim.  vi.  5 ;  comp.  i.  6, 19  ;  2  Tim. 
iii.  8),  since  they  always  lead  farther  and  farther  from  faith  and  truth 
(1  Tim.  vi.  21 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  18).  The  question  turns  on  a  false  striving 
after  knowledge,  arising  from  an  unhealthy  state  of  the  religious  life. 
Hence  it  finds  satisfaction  in  unfruitful  speculations  that  have  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  wliat  is  necessary  to  man's  salvation. 

8  A  practical  tendency  appears  only  in  Tit.  i.  14,  where  reference  is 
certainly  made  to  the  institutions  of  men,  which  according  to  i.  15  must 
have  been  mainly  attached  to  the  Old  Testament  distinctions  of  clean 
and  unclean,  since  those  who  originated  them  are  undoubtedly  character- 
ized as  unbelieving  Jews  (i.  16) ;  a  fact  which  indeed  is  generally  mis- 
apprehended. But  it  does  not  appear  that  the  so-called  errorists  generally 
followed  ascetic  tendencies ;  for  1  Tim.  iv.  1-3  refers  to  an  error  respect- 
ing the  future,  resting  on  fundamentally  destructive,  dualistic  views, 
which  however  is  placed  in  no  sort  of  connection  with  present  doc- 
trinal errors.  Nor  has  the  terrible  corruption  of  morals  foretold  in  2  Tim. 
iii.  1-5  any  direct  connection  with  them,  although  it  would  naturally  in- 
crease the  disposition  for  such  doctrines  as  had  no  moral  value  (iv.  3  f .). 
But  the  fact  that  it  will  conceal  itself  under  the  cloak  of  piety  brings  the 
Apostle  to  the  nominal  piety  of  those  teachers  who  only  satisfy  religious 
curiosity,  without  leading  to  moral  improvement  (iii.  6f.).  Nor  does  it 
appear  that  they  practised  magic  arts ;  for  the  term  seducers  (iii.  13)  as 
applied  to  them  is  only  called  forth  by  a  comparison  with  the  Egyptian 
sorcerers,  which  is  expressly  limited  to  their  conscious  resistance  to  the 
truth,  and  the  manifestation  of  their  folly  (iii.  8  f.). 


392   THEIB  SUPPOSED  POLEMIC  AGAINST  THE   GNOSTICS. 

engaged  in  disputations.  Hence  there  is  no  admonition  to 
dispute  with  them  or  to  defend  the  truth  against  them, 
Timothy  being  even  warned  against  the  unripe  lusts  of  youth 
(2  Tim.  ii.  22).  All  that  is  required  is  to  avoid  these  specu- 
lations (1  Tim.  vi.  20;  2  Tim.  ii.  16;  Tit.  iii.  9),  and  to 
refuse  to  enter  upon  them  (1  Tim.  iv.  7 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  23)  ,4  The 
question  turns  only  on  the  conduct  of  the  erring  as  snch, 
never  on  their  doctrines ;  for  suspicion  does  not  attach  to 
these  in  themselves  but  to  the  injurious  effects  of  personal 
conduct,  which  leads  necessarily  to  strife  and  vain  conten- 
tions about  words  (Tit.  iii.  9;  1  Tim.  vi.  4  f.;  2  Tim.  ii.  23); 
since  each  empty  assertion  can  with  equal  right  be  met  by 
counter-assertion  (1  Tim.  vi.  20 :  Kero^xaviot  KOI  &vriOe<r€i$  T^S 
v  yv<oo-ea>s),  and  finally  to  divisions  (Tit.  iii.  10: 
fy>.).  It  injures  Christian  life  by  turning  aside 
from  the  one  thing  needful  to  matters  religiously  as  well  as 
morally  unfruitful  (2  Tim.  ii.  14 ;  iii.  6  f .),  and  may  even 
lead  to  assertions  that  directly  tend  to  the  subverting  of  the 
faith  (ii.  18),  a  singular  remark  when  the  subject  under  dis- 
cussion is  a  priori  an  erroneous  doctrine  hostile  to  faith. 
It  embroils  family  life  (Tit.  i.  11),  finding  easiest  access  to 
women  owing  to  their  religious  excitability  (2  Tim.  iii.  6), 
and  finally  is  only  calculated  to  profit  the  adepts  of  the  new 
wisdom  (1  Tim.  vi.  5). 

2.  Even  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  who  make  no  claim  what- 
ever to  an  historical  interpretation  of  our  epistles,  found  the 
Valentinian  series  of  icons  in  the  fabuloo  et  genealogise;  and 


4  He  is  simply  to  forbid  the  teaching  of  these  things  (1  Tim.  i.  8 ; 
2  Tim.  ii.  14),  to  stop  the  mouths  of  the  talkers,  to  censure  them  sharply 
(Tit.  i.  11,  iii.  10),  and  after  repeated  admonition  to  break  off  all  inter- 
course with  them  (iii.  10),  but  is  exhorted  where  there  is  auy  prospect 
of  success  to  instruct  them  with  gentleness  (2  Tim.  ii.  24  ff.).  Hence 
their  dmA^-yew  (Tit.  i.  9),  their  ivTiSiarWeffOat  (2  Tim.  ii.  25),  their  drft- 
ffTarai  r$  dXijOdif.  (iii.  8)  do  not  denote  their  opposition  to  certain  doc- 
trines, but  their  resistance  to  interference  with  their  conduct,  which 
might  lead  them  to  blaspheme  those  who  denounced  it  (1  Tim.  i.  20). 


THE   PECULIARITIES   OF   THE   PASTORAL   EPISTLES.  393 

in  1  Tim.  i.  4  in  particular  a  condemnation  beforehand  of 
Marcion's  indeterminabiles  qusestiones  (Tert.,  adv.  Val.  3,  de 
Prcescr.  Hcer.  33,  adv.  Marc.  i.  9,  comp.  Iren.,  adv.  Hcer.,  I., 
praef.).  When  Hammond  and  Mosheim  and  even  de  Wette 
discover  in  them  an  attack  on  the  Gnostics,  they  have  in 
mind  the  beginnings  of  Gnosticism  in  the  first  century ;  it 
was  Baur  who  first  made  their  polemic  refer  to  the  Gnosis 
of  the  second  century,  which  according  to  his  view  of 
the  statement  of  Hegesippus  (ap.  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  3,  22)  did 
not  make  its  appearance  until  Trajan's  time ;  especially  to 
the  Marcionites.  For  example,  he  made  the  dn-i$«ras  of 
1  Tim.  vi.  20  refer  to  Marcion's  well-known  work,  in  com- 
plete opposition  to  the  context  and  wording ;  the  vo/AoSiSao-- 
KaXoL  and  the  /ta^ai  vo/iixat  (i.  7 ;  Tit.  iii.  9)  to  his  funda- 
mental attack  on  the  law,  which  he  found  combated  in 
1  Tim.  i.  8.  But  although  he  was  followed  by  Volkmar  and 
Scholten,  Schwegler  found  himself  compelled  to  combine  an 
allusion  to  the  Yalentinians  with  that  to  Marcion,  on  account 
of  the  Patristic  reference  of  the  yeveoAoytai  to  Gnostic  series 
of  aeons,  which  was  also  accepted  by  Baur ;  while  Hilgenfeld 
added  Saturninus  and  the  Marcosians;  and  Lipsius  (in  his 
Gnosticismus,  Leipzig,  1860),  Pfleiderer  and  Schenkel  went 
back  to  the  pre-Valcntinian  Ophitism.  Holtzmann  however 
has  shown  (die  Pastoralbriefe,  Leipzig,  1880)  that  no  allusions 
to  a  concrete  formulated  sect  are  anywhere  to  be  found ;  he 
therefore  adopts  the  view  of  a  general  attack  on  incipient 
Gnosticism,  the  Judaistic  features  interwoven  in  the  picture 
(Tit.  i.  10,  14,  iii.  9 ;  1  Tim.  i.  7)  being  attributed  to  the 
part  previously  played  by  the  pseudonymous  writer ;  since  a 
natural  colouring  could  not  be  given  to  letters  of  the  Apostle, 
whose  life-work  consisted  in  the  struggle  against  Judaism, 
without  polemic  against  this  system.  Criticism  itself  has  . 
thus  plainly  conceded  that  the  delineation  of  doctrinal  errors 
contained  in  our  epistles  does  not  harmonize  with  what  we 
know  of  Gnosticism  from  history. 


394  tINTENABLENESS   OP  THIS  BEFEBENCB. 

Appeal  being  continually  made  to  the  \fttvSu>vvnoi  •yn&w  of  1  Tim.  vi. 
20,  Holtzmann  himself  has  at  last  been  obliged  to  concede  that  it  is  not 
an  antignostio  shibboleth  adopted  by  the  author  of  our  epistles  from 
Hegesippus  whose  words  are  more  probably  to  be  found  in  Euseb.,  H.E., 
4,  22,  but  that  it  is  on  the  contrary  Eusebius  himself  (H.E.,  3,  32)  who 
refers  to  our  epistles.  The  only  passage  in  which  an  attack  on  dnalistio 
Gnosis  is  still  found  (1  Tim.  iv.  1-3),  foretells  a  phenomenon  of  the 
future  that  is  visibly  expected  to  force  its  way  in  from  heathen  soil 
(No.  1,  note  2)  ;  2  Tim.  ii.  18  treats  not  of  an  axiom  of  the  errorists,  but 
of  an  eiceptional  statement  to  'which  some  have  been  driven  in  opposing 
them  (No.  1,  comp.  §  27,  1,  note  1)  ;  while  Tit.  i.  16  refers  not  to  the 
pretence  of  a  special  knowledge  of  God  but  to  unbelieving  Judaism  (No. 
1,  note  2).  Mangold  has  convincingly  shown  that  the  ytveaXoytcu  neither 
is,  nor  from  the  context  can  be,  a  designation  of  the  Gnostic  series  of 
seons;  and  neither  the  self-seeking  conduct  of  the  so-called  errorists 
(comp.  2  Cor.  zi.  20),  nor  the  fact  that  they  turn  with  their  propaganda 
to  the  more  active  religious  need  of  the  less  critical  female  sex  (2  Tim. 
iii.  6),  is  exclusively  a  sign  of  Gnosticism.  Thus  the  whole  weight  of 
proof  for  the  reference  of  the  epistles  to  Gnosis  finally  rests  on  the  fact 
that  expressions  in  them,  which  according  to  the  context  have  an  en- 
tirely different  meaning,  are  made  to  refer  polemically  to  the  distinction 
of  classes  of  men  metaphysically  different  (1  Tim.  ii.  4  ;  Tit.  ii.  11),  to 
the  distinction  between  the  supreme  God  and  the  Demiurge  and  to  the 
Gnostic  doable  personality  of  Christ  (1  Tim.  ii.  5),  to  the  partial  rejection 
of  the  Old  Testament  (2  Tim.  iii.  16)  and  such-like  ;  while  echoes  of 
Gnosticism  are  again  found  in  such  passages  as  1  Tim.  iii.  6,  in  the  great 
doxologies  of  1  Tim.,  and  in  expressions  like  aiuves,  t  n-t^ama,  etc. 


Starting  on  the  other  hand  from  the  undoubted  Judaistic 
features,  it  was  natural  to  refer  the  polemic  of  the  epistles 
to  the  old  Pharisaic  opponents  of  the  Apostle,  who  proved 
their  title  to  the  kingdom  of  God  by  means  of  genealogical 
tables.  And  though  Patristic  expositors,  like  Chrysostom 
and  Jerome,  or  dogmatic  ones,  like  Calovius,  might  incline 
to  this  view,  yet  it  is  too  obviously  contradicted  by  the  fact 
that  their  well-known  pretensions  are  nowhere  attacked  in 
our  epistles.1  Hence  Augustine  thought  of  the  theosophy 

1  The  notion  of  a  Jewish  learning  that  ascribed  a  special  significance 
for  religious  life  to  its  researches  respecting  the  historical  and  legal  con- 
tents of  the  Torah,  developed  by  Hofmann  ;  or  Rolling's  hypothesis  of 
Judaists  who  dissipate  the  facts  of  salvation  into  ideas,  retaining  only 


THE   PECULIARITIES  0$  TSE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.   395 

traditionally  transplanted  into  Judaism;  while  Herder, 
Schneckenburger,  Olshausen  and  others,  especially  M.  Baum- 
garten)  dieEchtheit  der  Pastor albriefe,  Berlin,  1837),  following 
Grotius,  directly  characterized  the  errorists  as  cabbalists. 
But  since  the  roots  of  the  Cabbala  cannot  be  proved  to  have 
reached  back  into  the  apostolic  age,  Hug  and  others  with 
greater  caution  adhered  to  a  Judaism  influenced  by  Oriental 
philosophy,  which  gave  rise  to  the  view  most  widely  adopted 
by  the  defenders  of  the  epistles,  that  we  have  to  do  with  the 
beginnings  of  Judaizing  Gnosis  or  Gnostic  Judaism  reaching 
back  into  apostolic  times.2  Mayerhoff  assumed  a  special 
reference  to  the  Cerinthian  Gnosis,  while  Mangold  (die  Irr- 
lehrer  der  Pastoralbriefe,  Marburg,  1856),  after  the  example 
of  Michaelis,  Wegscheider  and  others,  found  Essenism  even 
here,  and  met  with  assent  from  Gran,  Immer  and  later 
commentators.  But  here  too  the  differences  far  outweigh 
the  casual  resemblances. 

While  no  trace  either  of  Judaism  or  of  the  Docetism  of  Cerinthus  is  to 
be  found  in  our  epistles,  Mangold  has  very  ingeniously  developed  Philo'a 
view  of  the  allegorical  application  of  the  Old  Testament  genealogies  to 
the  rpbiroi  rijs  ^uX'Js  (comp.  Dahne,  Stud.  «.  Krit.,  1833,  4),  though  with- 
out being  able  to  give  conclusive  evidence  of  this  having  been  shared  by 
the  Essenes  or  combated  in  our  epistles.  Everything  else  that  he  adduces 
is  either  not  exclusively  applicable  to  them,  or  can  only  be  traced  back  to 
them  by  means  of  rash  hypotheses.  It  was  indeed  very  natural  to  regard 
the  ascetics  of  the  Roman  Epistle,  as  well  as  the  asoetio  theosophists  of 
the  Colossian  Epistle,  whom  we  have  also  traced  back  to  Essene  influences, 
as  the  precursors  of  the  tendency  combated  in  our  epistles.  But  this 
tendency  shows  no  ascetic  feature  (comp.  No.  1,  note  2) ;  nor  can  it  with 
certainty  be  alleged  that  the  speculations  in  which  it  indulged  were  of  a 


dry  genealogies  of  the  Old  Testament  history  of  salvation,  is  quite  un- 
intelligible and  without  historical  foundation. 

2  This  view,  represented  by  Guericke,  Eeuss,  Bottger  and  Neander; 
among  commentators  by  Mack,  Matthies,  Huther,  has  often  made  en- 
tirely groundless  concessions  to  the  opinion  which  adopts  the  Gnosis  of 
the  second  century,  and  is  exposed  to  the  just  reproach  of  carrying  into 
the  apostolic  period  phenomena  that  can  only  be  proved  to  belong  to  the 
second  century. 


396  PAULINISM  OF  THE  EPISTLES. 

theosophic  nature,  especially  since  all  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  angelg 
or  angel-worship  is  wanting ;  for  it  is  certainly  an  error  to  interpret  the 
genealogies  as  ranks  of  angels. 

We  have  therefore  no  certain  historical  link  with  which 
to  connect  this  phenomenon ;  but  there  is  the  less  ground 
for  asserting  that  these  aberrations  of  a  newly-awakened 
striving  after  knowledge,  that  are  at  least  parallel  with 
those  of  the  Phrygian  Churches  and  do  not  in  any  case  ex- 
hibit traits  of  later  Gnostic  phenomena,  cannot  belong  to  the 
apostolic  age  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word. 

3.  It  is  only  natural  for  those  who  adopt  the  view  of  a 
living  development  of  Pauline  teaching,  such  as  is  actually 
presented  in  the  successive  epistles  and  may  be  accounted 
for  by  the  historical  relations  that  called  them  forth,  to  as- 
sume that  the  new  spiritual  movements  in  the  Christian 
Church  on  which  the  Apostlo's  eye  is  fixed  in  our  epistles, 
must  have  had  some  influence  on  his  mode  of  writing.  It 
is  of  course  self-evident  that  they  could  have  no  power  to 
change  the  essence  of  his  doctrine  of  salvation.  Wherever 
this  finds  deliberate  expression  (1  Tim.  i.  12  ff . ;  2  Tim.  i.  9  ff., 
ii.  10  ff. ;  Tit.  ii.  11  ff.,  iii.  3  ff.),  it  is  specifically  Pauline. 
There  certainly  is  no  detailed  proof  of  the  fact  that  the 
doctrine  of  salvation  rests  on  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Christ;  although  where  touched  upon  the  thought  is  genuinely 
Pauline ;  nor  is  it  shown  that  the  need  of  salvation  has  its 
root  in  the  fleshly  condition  of  man,  although  the  conceptions 
of  vovs  and  Tirev/Ao.  are  employed  in  the  true  Pauline  sense ; 
but  in  letters  to  his  trusted  disciples  who  share  his  faith, 
and  where  doctrinal  errors  not  at  variance  with  it  are  con- 
cerned, there  is  no  need  of  such  proof.1 

1  It  was  therefore  quite  a  mistake  to  regret  the  absence  of  the  anti- 
theses of  the  older  epistles  in  various  passages,  although  a  more  can-fill 
consideration  of  the  context  might  have  shown  that  it  absolutely  excluded 
them.  It  is  only  the  reference  to  what  is  Gnostic  (No.  2)  brought  into 
isolated  expressions,  that  gives  them  a  strange  appearance  or  leads  to 


THE  PECULIAEITIES  OF  THE  PASTOEAL  EPISTLES.  397 

It  is  only  in  the  doctrine  of  election,  the  fundamental  conceptions  of 
which  are  reproduced  in  a  truly  Pauline  form,  that  a  certain  change 
appears,  not  indeed  consisting,  as  has  been  supposed,  in  an  emphasizing 
of  the  universality  of  the  Divine  purpose  of  salvation  (1  Tim.  ii.  4,  iv. 
10),  but  in  the  fact  that  Paul  no  longer  holds  all  members  of  the  Church 
to  be  elected  (2  Tim.  ii.  19  f.)  owing  to  the  experiences  he  had  made, 
particularly  in  the  latest  disturbances;  while  he  all  the  more  emphatically 
declares  the  Church  in  its  unchanging  foundation  to  be  the  ground 
and  pillar  of  Truth  (1  Tim.  iii.  15).  The  conception  of  the  completed 
kingdom  of  God  as  the  heavenly  kingdom  of  Christ  (2  Tim.  iv.  18)  co- 
incides with  the  development  of  the  Christology  in  the  Captivity  Epistles ; 
while  the  fact  that  the  persons  addressed  were  to  live  to  see  the  return  of 
Christ  (1  Tim.  vi.  14 ;  2  Tim.  iv.  1),  can  only  be  got  rid  of  by  transform- 
ing them  into  representatives  of  future  office-bearers.  And  if  the  Apostle's 
interest  in  celibacy  has  visibly  diminished  (1  Tim.  v.  14,  ii.  15;  but 
compare  iii.  2, 12,  v.  9 ;  Tit.  i.  6),  this  too  must  be  accounted  for  by 
experience  of  a  hazardous  nature  (comp.  1  Tim.  v.  16). 

The  peculiarity  that  nevertheless  characterizes  the  Pas- 
toral  Epistles  consists  not  merely  in  a  withdrawal  of  the  strict 
dogmatic  teaching  already  met  with  in  the  Captivity  Epistles, 
but  in  the  prominence  of  a  universal  religious  element  as 
opposed  to  the  specific  Christian  element,  that  seems  to  be 
reduced  to  certain  leading  points  perhaps  already  firmly 
formulated,  and  an  absence  of  the  concrete  world  of  ideas  to 
which  we  are  accustomed  in  Paul's  writing  as  compared  with 
a  more  abstract  phraseology.  But  even  in  the  case  of  Paul, 
his  doctrine  of  salvation,  which  was  arrived  at  through 
severe  conflict,  shared  by  his  disciples  and  no  longer  assailed 
even  amid  the  errors  of  the  present,  was  gradually  compelled 
to  assume  the  form  of  a  completed  possession,  whose  media- 
ting gradations  receded  more  and  more  into  the  background. 

their  being  restamped  in  the  interest  of  a  preconceived  view  of  the 
epistles,  just  as  irforis  was  taken  in  the  sense  of  justification,  or  remote 
tendencies  of  ecclesiastical  polity  were  put  into  utterances  respecting  the 
Church.  In  the  same  way  it  is  only  by  artificial  interpretation  that  any- 
thing un-Pauline  has  been  put  into  utterances  respecting  the  position  of 
the  Christian  to  the  law  (1  Tim.  i.  8  ff.)  and  the  Scripture  of  the  Old 
Testament  (2  Tim.  iii.  16),  respecting  Judaism  (2  Tim.  i.  3  ff.)  and  hea- 
thenism (Tit.  iii.  3  ff.). 


398  THEIR  SPECIAL  TEACHING. 

Hence  the  emphasizing  of  "  sound  doctrine,"  whose  contents 
form  absolute  truth,  and  on  whose  appropriation  in  faith 
and  truth  everything  depends.  On  the  other  hand  present 
disturbances  must  have  revealed  to  him  with  increasing  clear- 
ness  how  little  the  Church  was  in  a  position  to  follow  him 
into  the  whole  depth  of  his  knowledge  of  salvation  or  in 
the  apprehension  of  his  form  of  doctrine  with  its  individual 
stamp ;  and  how  easily  it  might  be  led  aside  into  the  more 
convenient  ways  of  unfruitful  speculation.  Hence  the 
return  to  the  great  leading  points  that  had  already  passed 
over  into  the  common  faith ;  and  the  intentional  adherence 
to  the  expression  already  given  to  these  in  it.  But  in  pro- 
portion as  the  doctrinal  errors  of  the  present  were  due  to  a 
morbid  state  of  religious  life  (1  Tim.  vi.  4 ;  comp.  Tit.  i.  13, 
ii.  2),  was  Paul  obliged  to  go  back  to  the  deepest  foundation 
of  such  life,  emphasizing  pure  piety  and  a  good  conscience, 
as  well  as  its  close  connection  with  sound  doctrine  or  truth 
(1  Tim.  iii.  16,  vi.  3  ;  Tit.  i  1).  In  opposition  to  a  striving 
after  knowledge  which  was  entirely  unfruitful  and  even 
destructive  of  religious  life,  he  had  to  bring  into  prominence 
the  educating  character  of  the  revelation  of  Divine  grace 
(Tit.  ii.  11  ff.),  to  emphasize  the  ayaOa  and  /coXa  tpya,  and  to 
require  exemplification  in  the  closest  and  simplest  relations 
of  life  of  the  piety  developed  by  Christian  truth.3  Moreover 
the  greater  prominence  given  to  the  doctrine  of  reward, 

>  A  specifically  Pauline  representation  of  the  Christian  life  aa  resting 
on  community  of  life  with  Christ  and  on  the  Spirit  is  by  no  means  want- 
ing (2  Tim.  iii.  12  ;  Tit.  iii.  6  f.);  bat  it  recedes  into  the  background 
because  the  question  turns  less  on  its  central  foundation  than  on  its 
external  development.  Concepts  which  express  the  individual  and  social 
valne  of  Christian  morality  (o-w^/xxn/ci?  <refu'6n)t)  rather  than  its  religious 
character,  are  prominent ;  and  the  fundamental  conceptions  of  tvot,-itta, 
•riant,  diKaioavrrj,  appear  in  the  frequent  enumeration  of  the  indications 
of  true  Christian  life  in  a  line  with  special  Christian  virtues,  without 
the  necessity  of  marking  their  close  relation,  although  this  very 
thing  has  much  that  is  analogous  in  similar  enumerations  of  the  older 
epistles. 


THE  PECULIAEITIES  OF  THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.   399 

though  by  no  means  at  variance  with  the  older  Paulinism 
(1  Tim.  iii.  13,  vi.  18 ;  2  Tim.  i.  16,  18),  is  in  keeping  with 
the  fact  that  greater  stress  is  laid  in  our  epistles  on  motives 
of  a  general  religious  character,  pointing  to  contact  with 
simpler  New  Testament  forms  of  doctrine.  The  nearer  the 
Apostle  saw  his  end  approach  the  more  desirous  he  must 
have  been  to  give  universally  intelligible  expression  to  his 
teaching,  and  to  support  it  by  reasons  most  likely  to  meet 
with  general  acceptance. 

4.  If  we  would  rightly  estimate  the  peculiarity  of  ex- 
pression in  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  we  must  not  forget  that 
we  have  here  to  do  with  simple  precepts  and  directions  to 
trusted  disciples ;  in  2  Tim.  likewise  with  a  word  of  touching 
admonition.  The  polemic  against  the  doctrinal  errors  of  the 
time,  is  not  designed  to  refute  them,  but  to  assign  reasons 
for  the  directions  given  respecting  them ;  reference  to  the 
great  fundamental  truths  of  the  gospel  is  not  made  for 
the  purpose  of  defending  or  even  developing  them,  but  in 
order  to  establish  proper  points  of  view  and  aims  for  the 
ministry  of  the  disciples.  We  have  no  right  to  expect 
logical  development,  complicated  periods,  a  richer  use  of 
particles,  or  the  anacolutha  (anomalies)  of  the  doctrinal 
and  polemic  epistles,  or  even  the  long-drawn  sentences  of 
the  epistles  of  the  captivity,  with  their  overflowing  abund- 
ance of  accumulated  participles  and  prepositions,  although 
traces  of  such  are  not  wanting.1  It  must  further  be  taken 
into  consideration  that  our  epistles  are  on  the  whole  some- 
what monotonous  in  expression,  the  very  same  words  and 
turns,  with  slight  variation,  recurring  again  and  again;  a 
circumstance  which,  from  the  nearness  of  time  when  they 

1  Compare  the  long  periods  2  Tim.  i.  3-5 ;  Tit.  iii.  4-7,  the  change 
and  abundance  of  the  prepositions  (Tit.  i.  1-3,  iii.  5  f.),  the  anacolutha 
(anomalies)  1  Tim.  i.  3  ff.  ;  Tit.  i.  1  ff.  How  unequally  the  conjunc- 
tions and  prepositions  missed  by  Holtzmanu  are  distributed  in  the 

otkor  Paulin.es,  has  been  com  iiicingly  shown  by  Kolliug. 


400  THEIR   MODE   OP   WRITING. 

were  composed  and  the  complete  similarity  of  subjects  of 
which  they  treat,  is  at  least  as  easily  explained  as  the  parallels 
of  the  Roman  and  Galatian  Epistles,  of  the  two  Thessalonian 
Epistles,  and  of  the  Ephesian  and  Colossian  Epistles.'  The 
language  of  our  epistles  has  nevertheless  a  peculiar  colour- 
ing, confined  almost  exclusively  to  words  and  phrases ;  for 
even  Holtzmann  has  scarcely  discovered  any  real  gramma- 
tical peculiarities.  Undue  value  has  indeed  been  attached  to 
the  Hapaxlegomena  of  our  epistles,  as  the  statistics  of  this 
phenomenon,  so  zealously  prosecuted  of  late,  have  shown, 
since  they  are  very  unequally  distributed  among  the  other 
epistles  ;  only  a  small  number,  by  their  frequent  recurrence, 
appearing  as  actual  peculiarities  of  our  epistles.  We  cannot 
dispute  the  fact  that  our  epistles  contain  a  great  number  of 
favourite  expressions  not  found  elsewhere  in  Paul,  or  only 
in  isolated  cases,  particularly  if  we  also  take  into  consider- 
ation groups  of  words  from  the  same  stem  or  compounded  in 
the  same  way,  as  well  as  combinations  of  words  and  turns 
of  expression.  Much  of  this  has  to  do  with  the  doctrinal 
errors  combated  in  them,  which  are  naturally  characterized 
in  the  same  way;  as  also  with  the  new  mode  of  teaching 
adopted  by  Paul  in  opposing  them.3  Finally  the  similar 

*  Though  criticism  declares  the  far-reaching  agreement  that  is  never- 
theless shown  with  the  older  epistles  in  store  of  words  and  turns  of 
expression,  to  be  an  indication  of  literary  dependence,  yet  it  is  only 
tendency-exegesis  that  has  been  able  to  furnish  a  semblance  of  proof  in 
favour  of  this  assumption.  There  is  nothing  at  all  strange  in  the  fact 
that  this  extends  also  to  the  writings  of  Luke,  since  they  likewise  proceed 
from  a  disciple  of  Paul.  But  it  is  quite  in  harmony  with  the  vital  wealth 
of  the  Pauline  diction  that  the  same  ideas  and  thoughts  are  in  some 
cases  differently  expressed,  or  analogous  expressions  employed  with  new 
modifications,  and  is  sufficiently  explained  by  a  more  careful  and  un- 
prejudiced exegesis. 

1  Hence  the  recurrence  of  pvOoi  and  yetfaXoylai,  of  pirrpcu  and  Xoyo- 
/iax<a>.  of  f)tpr)\ot  Kevo<fj<i}i>ta.i  and  of  naratoXoyla.,  of  &.<rro\(~tv,  trtpdartiffOu 
and  vapaireiffOat  in  combating  them.  So  too  0efa  <rur^p  may  be  used  by 
preference  with  distinct  allusion  to  their  empty  speculations  respecting 
God,  as  also  IT  fascia,  and  similar  expressions.  Bat  we  must  not  as- 


THE  PECULIAEITIES  OF  THE  PASTOKAL  EPISTLES.   401 

treatment  of  the  qualifications  for  office  in  the  Church,  as 
also  the  frequent  repetition  of  the  same  or  similar  thoughts, 
lead  of  themselves  to  the  recurrence  of  the  same  words  and 
phrases.  The  peculiarity  of  expression  certainly  exceeds 
whatf  can  be  explained  in  either  of  these  ways ;  and  in  many 
of  its  aspects  defies  all  attempt  at  explanation.4  But  in  the 
Latinisms  of  the  epistles  (&Y  yv  alriav,  x<*Plv  *X€lv>  aS^Xor^s, 
irpoKpip.a)  that  are  simply  due  to  the  many  years'  captivity 
at  Rome,  and  the  fact  that  there  is  much  to  remind  us 
of  the  Philippian  Epistle  which  is  nearest  to  them  in  time 
(irpOKOTny,  dvoAvoris,  KepSos,  <re/4vos,  ev  Tracrtv,  CTre^eiv,  (nrevftecrOai, 
etc.),  we  have  at  least  a  hint  how  easily  influences  that  elude 
all  proof,  may  in  gradual  development  combined  with  an 


surne  with  Otto  that  the  Apostle  had  in  any  sense  adopted  the  shibboleth 
of  the  errorists,  since  Paul  declares  the  substance  of  their  doctrine  to  be 
utterly  devoid  of  all  religious  character.  Hence  on  the  other  hand  the 
many  derivatives  of  SiStSurxeiv,  the  similar  expressions  by  which  sound 
(or  beautiful)  doctrine  or  speech  is  always  characterized,  the  constant 
recurrence  of  ei}<r^3eta  and  kindred  expressions,  of  &ya6i)  (icadapd.)  <rwel- 
Srjffu,  of  ayaOa  (/ca\d)  tpya,  of  words  that  are  grouped  about  <r<j)<ppoavvi) 
or  fft/jLv&rijs,  and  much  of  the  same  kind. 

4  To  such  peculiarity  belong  words  like  apvelaOai  and 
numerous  compounds  with  <f>l\os  and  word-forms  from  fjtdprvs  and 
not  all  of  which  are  in  keeping  with  reference  to  family  life ;  as  well 
as  phrases  like  StapepaiovffOai  irept  TWOS,  HvOpuvot  Beov,  waylt  rod  8la~ 
/3<JXow  that  appear  twice,  and  SiafMprtpeffOai  IV&TTI.OV  TOV  Beov  (xvplov),  &v 
fork,  that  appear  three  times,  besides  TWTOS  6  \6yos  that  occurs  five 
times,  and  eV  ira<nv  that  occurs  six  times.  To  this  may  be  added  the  want 
of  so  many  expressions  elsewhere  characteristic  of  the  Apostle.  Though 
much  must  be  subtracted  from  what  Holtzmann  has  collected,  yet  the 
absence  of  the  groups  of  words  that  revolve  round  ipporeiv,  ivepyclv,  ire- 
picrffeijciv,  ir\eovA£fu>>  bira.Ko>L/eiv,  iwoKaMirrtiv,  Kavx8.<r0ai  has  something 
striking.  The  attempt  to  explain  the  peculiarity  of  expression  in  the 
epistles  from  the  age  of  the  Apostle,  after  the  manner  of  Guericke,  is 
forbidden  by  the  fact  that  they  are  separated  from  the  Philippian 
Epistle  only  by  a  few  years  at  most ;  and  that  it  is  customary  for  lan- 
guage in  old  age  to  become  impoverished  and  stereotyped  rather  than 
enriched  or  modified.  Rolling's  crotchet  that  the  cultured  Paul  speaks 
in  scientific  terminology  with  his  disciples  of  like  erudition,  can  hardly 
be  taken  seriously. 

D  D 


402  CHURCH-OFFICE   IN   THE   EPISTLES. 

individuality  so  unique,  have  called  forth  a  process  of  trans- 
formation even  here. 

5.  Again,  the  Apostle's  care  for  Church  organization  is 
peculiar  to  our  epistles.1  In  Crete  it  is  to  be  brought 
about  by  the  nomination  of  elders  (Tit.  i.  5)  ;  in  Ephesus 
where  a  twofold  Church-office  had  long  existed,  mistakes 
of  appointment  are  to  be  guarded  against  by  careful 
observance  of  the  necessary  qualifications  (1  Tim.  iii.  1-13, 
v.  22). 

From  this  it  already  appears  that  we  have  not  to  do  here  with  a 
definite  model  according  to  which  Cbnrch -organization  was  to  be  uni- 
versally carried  oat ;  for  since  the  ve&rtpoi  (Tit.  ii.  6)  as  opposed  to  the 
irpffffivrai  and  irpe<r£vr/8«  (ii.  2  f.)  can  only  be  a  designation  of  age 
(comp.  1  Tim.  v.  1  f.),  there  is  no  allusion  yet  to  a  second  office  in  tbe 
Church  such  as  existed  at  Ephesus ;  and  the  assumption  that  there 
were  deaconesses  as  well  as  deacons  at  Ephesus  (1  Tim.  iii.  8  ff.,  12  f.), 
rests  on  an  impossible  interpretation  ot  iii.  11,  where  from  the  context 
there  can  only  be  an  allusion  to  the  wives  of  the  deacons,  or  of  1  Tim. 
v.  2.  In  like  manner  we  see  that  Paul,  who  regarded  it  as  hazardous 
for  his  comparatively  youthful  helpers  to  occupy  themselves  with  the 
spiritual  guidance  of  young  persons  of  the  female  sex,  and  counselled 
great  prudence  where  this  might  incidentally  happen  (1  Tim.  v.  2,  (v 
Triiffv  dyvdy),  left  it  to  the  matrons  at  Crete  to  do  this  in  their  stead 
(Tit.  ii.  4  f.).  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  more  matured  relations  of  the 
Ephesian  Church  there  were  already  widows  who,  having  a  specially 
conferred  ecclesiastical  post  of  honour,  practised  this  duty  as  their 
active  calling ;  and  for  the  judicious  appointment  to  this  honorary  post 
the  Apostle  also  gives  minute  directions  (v.  9-14).* 

1  Apart  from  the  first  journey,  that  Paul  made  with  Barnabas  to  carry 
out  the  commission  of  tbe  Church  at  Antioch,  and  on  which  he  is  said 
to  have  everywhere  made  provision  for  the  appointment  of  presbyters 
(Acts  xiv.  24),  we  have  nowhere  in  the  earlier  epistles  found  him  trou- 
bling himself  about  this  matter.  Of  an  organization  of  the  Galatian 
Churches  we  have  no  knowledge.  Of  the  Corinthian  we  know  definitely 
that  an  office  for  Cbnrch -government  and  discipline  did  not  exist. 
Whether  Paul  took  any  part  in  the  appointment  of  rulers  of  the  Church 
at  Thessalonica  (1  Thess.  v.  12),  of  bishops  and  deacons  at  Philippi 
(Phil.  i.  1),  of  the  Ephesian  presbyters  (Acts  xx.  17),  or  of  the  deaconess 
at  Cenchrea  (Bom.  xvi.  1)  we  are  absolutely  without  knowledge.  Comp. 
{  19,  8. 

*  Baur's  former  view,  that  only  virgins  bearing  the  honorary  title  of 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  403 

Nevertheless,  all  that  has  so  often  been  said  respecting 
the  hierarchical  tendencies  of  our  epistles  is  entirely  with- 
out foundation.  "We  find  as  yet  no  trace  of  the  parallelism 
of  the  New  Testament  Church  office  with  the  Old  Testament 
hierarchy,  that  made  its  appearance  so  early.  Nowhere  is 
mention  made  of  the  rights  of  officers  of  the  Church;  or  even 
of  any  special  dignity  belonging  to  them.3  With  strange 
inconsistency  offence  has  been  taken  at  one  time  with  the 
greatly  reduced  claims  said  to  be  made  by  our  epistles  in 
the  qualification  of  Church-officers;  while  at  another  time 
the  requirement  that  they  should  be  monogamists,  is  re- 
garded as  laying  the  foundation  of  a  peculiar  sanctity  of 
office  and  of  a  sacramental  character  attaching.  But  it  is 
overlooked  that  the  giftedness  and  inclination  to  it  that  are 
obvious  qualifications  for  the  bearing  of  office  are  nowhere 
mentioned,  only  the  fact  being  enforced  that  these  are  in- 
sufficient for  a  salutary  administration,  without  blameless- 
ness  in  civil  relations  and  probation  in  Christian  life.  But 
if  abstinence  from  second  marriage  (comp.  1  Cor.  vii.)  is  in 
true  Pauline  fashion  reckoned  among  those  things  that 
protect  the  office-bearer  from  all  reproach  and  ensure  for 
him  necessary  respect  in  the  judgment  of  the  Church,  it  is 
nevertheless  clear  from  the  very  circumstances  of  its  being 
put  on  a  par  with  other  postulates,  as  also  from  1  Tim. 


widows  are  here  meant,  has  long  since  been  refuted  ;  but  the  existence 
of  this  arrangement  is  another  sign  that  our  epistles  belong  to  the  later 
apostolic  period;  and  the  care  which  the  Apostle  devotes  to  it  is  certainly 
in  keeping  with  the  fact  that  the  relations  of  the  time  made  him  look 
upon  a  firmer  regulation  of  Church-life  as  necessary. 

3  Neither  can  the  putting  of  the  rulers  of  the  Church  together  into 
a  collegiate  board  (1  Tim.  iv.  14),  which  only  expresses  their  complete 
equality,  raise  them  to  a  higher  rank,  nor  can  a  contrast  between  the 
state  of  clergy  and  laity  be  implied  in  1  Tim.  v.  20,  since  oi  \onrol  must 
according  to  the  context  be  referred  to  the  other  presbyters.  1  Tim.  iii. 
10  has  as  little  reference  to  a  special  time  of  probation  that  had  to  bo 
gone  through  by  the  deacons,  as  has  iii.  13  to  a  distinction  of  rank  in 
Church  offices,  or  iii.  1  to  an  ambitious  strife  for  the  episcopate. 


404  BEGINNINGS  OF  A  TEACHING  OFFICE  IN  THEM. 

v.  9,  that  there  is  no  thought  of  any  specific  sanctity  of 
character.4  Above  all,  it  is  significant  that  no  trace  is  yet 
to  be  found  of  the  exaltation  of  the  monarchical  episcopate 
above  the  presbyterian  Church-administration,  which  is  so 
definite  a  characteristic  of  the  post- apostolic  time.  Even 
Banr  has  virtually  abandoned  the  attempt  to  prove  that 
the  epistles  contain  something  of  this  kind;  an  attempt 
that  was  natural  for  him  to  make  in  the  first  place,  owing 
to  his  conception  of  them ;  and  it  is  now  held  to  be  beyond 
dispute  that  the  bishops  of  1  Tim.  iii.  2  ff.,  next  to  whom 
deacons  are  named  as  a  second  office  (iii.  8  ff.),  can  only  be 
identical  with  the  presbyters  spoken  of  in  v.  17  ff.;  as  follows 
directly  from  Tit.  i.  5,  7.  The  reason  that  eVar/con-os  is  by 
chance  employed  only  in  the  singnlar  in  1  Tim.  iii.  2  and 
Tit.  i.  7,  is  obviously  that  in  both  cases  it  is  immediately 
preceded  by  TIS,  and  is  by  no  means  at  variance  with  the 
fact  that  the  two  expressions  are  merely  designations  dis- 
tinctive of  the  dignity  and  office  of  the  persons  who  admini- 
stered the  affairs  of  the  Church  on  a  perfect  equality. 

6.  Since  the  interest  taken  by  our  epistles  in  a  firmer 
Church  organization  is  essentially  conditioned  by  the  dan- 
gers which  threatened  the  life  of  the  Church,  and  these 
had  their  foundation  mainly  in  the  doctrinal  errors  of  that 
time,  it  is  easy  to  understand  the  importance  attached 


4  Although  Beyachlag  (die  Chrittl.  Oemeindeverfattung,  Harlem,  1874) 
finds  a  mark  of  the  post-apostolic  time  in  the  fact  that  the  appointment 
to  office  in  the  Church  takes  place  without  participation  on  the  part  of 
the  Church,  it  neither  appears  from  the  xeipororT^orret  (Acts  xiv.  23  ; 
comp.  x.  41),  nor  from  2  Cor.  viii.  19,  where  the  question  turns  on  the 
choice  of  trustworthy  men  for  the  conveyance  of  the  collections,  that  an 
actual  choice  of  the  Church  took  place  in  the  apostolic  time.  Even 
Titus  i.  5  gives  no  particulars  regarding  the  modus  of  the  appointment  of 
presbyters ;  on  the  contrary  the  qualifications  to  be  settled  by  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Church,  and  the  proof  required  in  1  Tim.  iii.  10  certainly 
presuppose  the  Church's  participation :  and  in  v.  9  where  reference  is 
made  to  enrolment  of  ecclesiastical  widows,  the  Church  is  certainly  the 
acting  body. 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  405 

to  the  establishment  of  sound  doctrine.  The  fact  that 
teaching  was  permitted  to  all,  and  was  not  bound  up  with 
a  particular  office,  is  shown  by  the  very  existence  of  such 
doctrinal  errors,  as  well  as  by  the  command  forbidding 
women  to  teach  (1  Tim.  ii.  12).  But  the  more  favourable 
this  state  of  things  was  for  the  spread  of  unsound  doctrine, 
the  more  urgently  does  Paul  impress  on  Timothy  to  find 
trustworthy  men  for  the  work  of  teaching,  and  to  commit 
it  to  their  charge  (2  Tim.  ii.  2).  This  could  be  done  most 
easily  and  safely  by  connecting  such  teaching  with  the 
official  administration  of  the  Church.  Hence  the  Apostle 
reckons  ability  to  teach  among  those  qualities  in  which  a 
bishop  must  not  be  lacking,  whatever  may  be  his  capacity 
for  his  special  calling  (1  Tim.  iii.  2) ;  explaining  the  reason 
of  his  injunction  in  Tit.  i.  9  by  a  reference  to  prevailing 
errors  of  doctrine.  He  expressly  commends  to  special 
honour  those  presbyters  who  engage  in  teaching ;  and  gives 
exactly  the  same  reasons  as  in  1  Cor.  ix.,  for  the  claim  they 
thus  obtain  to  be  supported  by  the  Church  (1  Tim.  v.  17  f .) ; 
while  the  widows,  like  all  others,  are  only  to  be  maintained 
by  the  Church  in  the  case  of  their  being  left  completely 
desolate  (v.  16;  comp.  v.  3-8).  The  need  of  sound  doctrine 
was  indeed  sufficiently  provided  for  by  the  apostolic  dis- 
ciples who  represented  the  Apostle  in  the  Churches.1  The 
Xapurfj.a  given  to  Timothy  (i.  6;  comp.  1  Tim.  iv.  14)  is 
not  an  official  grace  that  had  been  transmitted  to  him; 
but  according  to  the  context  is  undoubtedly  a  capacity  for 

1  Preaching  is  the  main  work  enjoined  on  Titus  (ii.  1, 15,  iii.  8)  as 
also  on  Timothy  (1  Tim.  iv.  6,  11,  vi.  2,  12)  even  in  the  matter  of 
representing  the  Apostle,  with  which  he  is  expressly  charged  (iv.  3,  16). 
The  whole  of  the  second  epistle  leads  up,  after  much  preparation,  to  the 
solemn  concluding  exhortation  (iv.  1  f.).  The  tpyov  et/ayyeXwroD  is  the 
special  Siaxovla  that  he  has  to  perform  (iv.  5) ;  just  as  the  vocation  speci- 
fically committed  to  the  Apostle,  that  he  himself  in  face  of  his  near 
approaching  end  could  not  fulfil  (iv.  6  ff.),  was  the  fuayyeXL^eydai  (1  Cor. 
i.17). 


406   BEGINNINGS   OP   A   TEACHING   OFFICE   IN   THEM. 

preaching  the  gospel  wrought  in  him  by  the  Spirit.  In 
the  bestowment  of  it  the  question  is  not  one  of  the  trans- 
ference of  an  office  with  an  especial  position  of  dignity  and 
exclusive  privileges ;  it  is  the  exercise  of  teaching  in  which 
none  should  despise  the  disciples  of  the  Apostle  on  account 
of  their  youth  (1  Tim.  iv.  12;  Tit.  ii.  15).  Their  only 
other  duty  consists  in  transmitting  the  Apostle's  directions 
to  the  Church  or  in  carrying  out  his  instructions  in  it: 
their  fixed  independent  activity  consisted  in  teaching.  It 
was  only  in  the  more  matured  relations  of  the  Ephesian 
Church  that  the  need  arose  to  charge  Timothy  on  his  own 
responsibility  with  the  solemn  induction  of  elders  into 
their  office,  and  with  their  discipline  (1  Tim.  v.  19  ff.,  22)  ; 2 
and  this  seems  to  be  the  point  at  which,  when  apostles 
or  apostles'  disciples  could  no  longer  conduct  the  supreme 
administration  of  the  Chuixsh,  monarchical  episcopacy  was 
of  necessity  developed  from  internal  needs. 

While  it  was  formerly  made  a  common  ground  of  objection  that  the 
alleged  Paul  treated  his  disciples  in  our  epistles  quite  too  like  schoolboys, 
the  very  position  of  these  apostolic  disciples  has  been  recently  regarded 
as  the  ideal  held  up  by  the  writer  of  the  epistle  to  his  time,  of  a  head 
thu  appointed  by  apostolic  arrangement  (comp.  Weizsacker,  Jahrb.  fiir 
deutsche  Thcol.,  1873,  4),  and  hence  the  model  of  episcopacy,  as  Pfleiderer, 
Hausrath  and  others  put  it,  or  even  of  the  archbishop  or  metropolitan,  as 
Holtzmann  holds.  But  these  disciples  of  the  Apostle,  whom  he  recalled 
and  sent  back  at  his  convenience  (2  Tim.  iv.  9,  12  ;  Tit.  iii.  12),  and  who 

*  1  Tim.  v.  17  has  as  little  to  do  with  stewardship  on  the  part  of  the 
apostolic  disciples,  as  1  Tim.  v.  22  with  the  restoration  of  the  fallen. 
The  assertion  that  we  here  find  Church-discipline  already  at  an  advanced 
stago  of  development,  is  entirely  without  foundation.  Belonging  to 
ffrtptbt  0eyuAcot  is  made  to  depend  not  on  Church-discipline  but  on  self- 
discipline  (2  Tim.  ii.  21).  Titus  iii.  10  f.  treats  neither  of  heretics  nor  of 
heretical  processes  in  the  later  sense  (Titus  iii.  10  f.),  but  of  the  con- 
viction that  the  man  who  causes  divisions  will  not  accept  correction,  for 
which  reason  nothing  remains  but  to  treat  him  as  commanded  (i.  11, 
13).  The  only  real  measure  of  discipline  that  is  mentioned  (1  Tim.  i. 
20),  is  that  intended  in  1  Cor.  v.  5,  and  is  carried  out  by  the  Apostle 
himself. 


THE   PASTOEAL   EPISTLES.  407 

only  represent  the  Apostle  in  caring  for  that  which  he  had  left  unfinished 
until  his  return  (Tit.  i.  5  ;  1  Tim.  iv.  13),  are  in  fact  very  little  fitted  for 
a  type  of  the  bearers  of  continual  and  independent  power  in  a  single  or 
provincial  Church.  The  only  respect  in  which  they  were  really  to  take 
the  Apostle's  place  after  his  death,  was  not  in  the  assumption  of  specific 
powers,  but  in  preaching  the  gospel  (2  Tim.  iv.  5  f.) ;  and  that  was  by 
no  means  the  real  aim  of  the  monarchical  or  hierarchical  development 
of  Church  government.  Not  they  as  the  bearers  of  a  definite  office  but 
the  Church  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth  (1  Tim.  iii.  15),  which 
neither  implies  correct  doctrine  as  such,  nor  its  protection  against 
errorists.  Hence  our  epistles  contain  nothing  in  support  of  this  alleged 
episcopal  position  of  the  apostolic  disciples  but  the  so-called  ordination 
of  Timothy ;  although,  if  this  is  to  be  taken  as  the  model  of  later  epi- 
scopal ordination,  it  is  very  striking  that  nothing  similar  is  recorded 
of  Titus  who  yet  occupied  the  same  position.  The  xd/H07ut,  which  was 
given  in  the  solemn  act  mentioned  in  1  Tim.  iv.  14 ;  2  Tim.  i.  6,  is, 
as  shown  above,  not  official  authority  and  dignity,  but  a  capacity  for 
preaching  the  gospel ;  and  this  is  not  conferred  by  the  conveyance  of 
office  as  Beyschlag  still  holds,  but  on  the  ground  of  prophecy,  which 
promises  this  Divine  gift  to  him  who  is  ordained  (1  Tim.  iv.  14 ;  comp.  i. 
18).  Hence  the  laying  on  of  hands  that  essentially  constituted  this  act 
of  consecration  can  only,  in  conformity  with  the  symbolism  of  the  act 
established  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  represent  and  guarantee  the 
transmission  of  this  promised  gift  to  the  recipient.  Moreover  the  co- 
operation of  the  irpo(j>T)Tda.  in  this  act  makes  it  impossible  that  the  author 
should  have  cited  it  as  an  ecclesiastical  act  that  was  always  to  be  per- 
formed at  the  regular  conveyance  of  a  definite  office.3  Finally,  since 
according  to  1  Tim.  v.  22,  the  presbyters  were  also  inducted  into  their 
office  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  it  is  clear  that  we  have  not  to  do  here 
with  the  conferring  of  a  specific  (episcopal)  official  character.  Compare 
Ktihl,  die  Gemeindeordnung  in  den  Pastoralbriefen,  Berlin,  1885,  and  J. 
Miiller,  die  Verf.  tf.  christl.  Kirche  u.  d.  Beziehungen  ders.  zu  d.  Krit.  d. 
Pastoralbriefe,  Leipzig,  1885. 

*  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  mention  that  this  so-called  ordination  of 
Timothy  did  not  take  place  in  Ephesus  where  Paul  left  him  as  his  repre- 
sentative, as  Otto,  Huther  and  others  maintain,  but  in  the  Church  of  his 
home  when  Paul  took  him  as  his  assistant.  Moreover  neither  1  Tim.  vi. 
12,  where  Timothy  is  only  reminded  of  his  baptism,  nor  2  Tim.  ii.  2, 
where  the  apostolic  teaching  is  in  question,  treats  of  this  ordination. 
That  the  rite  of  the  laying  on  of  hands  was  a  mark  of  post-apostolic 
time,  can  only  be  asserted  by  denying  all  credibility  to  the  Acts  (vi.  6, 
xiii.  3)  and  overlooking  the  fact  that  in  its  completely  analogous  use  in 
baptism  (Heb.  vi.  2)  and  in  imparting  the  Spirit  (Acts  viii.  17,  ix.  17, 
xix.  6)  it  was  an  early  Christian  custom. 


408  CULT  IN   THE  EPISTLES. 

7.  As  regards  worship  also,  our  epistles  already  show 
greater  development  of  form ;  but  it  is  very  significant  that 
traces  of  this  are  only  to  be  found  in  the  epistles  to  Timothy, 
where  we  have  to  do  with  a  Church  that  had  already  been 
in  existence  for  a  long  time.  The  very  care  for  the  constant 
exercise  of  the  work  of  teaching  points  to  a  time  when  the 
rich  stream  of  Christian  inspiration  that  sprang  out  of 
the  gifts  of  grace  peculiar  to  the  early  time,  began  to  ebb ; 
much  more  the  fact  that  Paul  deemed  it  necessary  to  make 
express  regulations  with  regard  to  Church  prayer  (1  Tim.  ii.), 
laying  special  stress  on  prayer  for  those  in  authority.1  On 
the  other  hand  the  great  doxologies  (1  Tim.  i.  17,  vi.  15  f.) 
already  show  traces  of  a  fixed  liturgical  usage ;  while  iii.  16 
is  probably  a  fragment  of  an  old  ecclesiastical  hymn.  So  too 
the  passage  2  Tim.  ii.  8  probably  echoes  the  stereotyped  way 
in  which  the  Church  confessed  and  established  its  faith  in  the 
Messiahship  of  Christ;  perhaps  a  baptismal  confession  (1  Tim. 
vi  12).  The  regular  reading  of  Old  Testament  Scripture 
was  certainly  practised  in  Christian  Churches  from  the 
beginning,  as  shown  by  the  acquaintance  with  it  that  Paul 
takes  for  granted  in  Rome  and  Galatia;  so  that  there  is 
nothing  strange  in  the  use  of  Scripture  in  thanksgiving  at 
meals  (iv.  5).  But  that  evangelical  texts  are  in  v.  18  already 
reckoned  as  Scripture  can  only  be  asserted,  if  our  epistle  be 
put  into  a  time  when  it  cannot  possibly  have  been  written, 
as  we  see  from  the  ecclesiastical  relations  implied.  The  fact 

1  It  is  only  possible  to  hear  the  voice  of  apologists  in  ii.  2  by  a  mis- 
interpretation of  the  passage  as  common  as  it  is  adverse  to  the  wording 
and  context;  for  the  passage  does  not  say  that  by  such  intercession  they 
are  to  procure  for  themselves  a  peaceful  life  undisturbed  by  the  autho- 
rities, but  that  such  prayer  alone  is  in  harmony  with  Christian  life 
secluded  from  the  world  and  averse  to  interference  in  its  affairs.  When 
Holtzmann  also  saw  in  the  virlp  fiaaiMwv  a  reference  to  the  time  (after 
137)  when  there  were  imperial  co-regents,  he  failed  to  observe  that  the 
absence  of  the  article  makes  this  grammatically  impossible.  Neither 
in  2  Tim.  i.  8  nor  elsewhere  is  there  any  allusion  to  a  time  of  severe 
persecution. 


CEITICISM  OP  THE  PASTOEAL  EPISTLES.  409 

that  women  are  still  forbidden  to  teach  (ii.  12),  and  that  it  is 
necessary  to  give  a  warning  against  desecrating  the  services 
of  the  Church  by  disputes  and  love  of  dress  (ii.  8  f.),  which 
exactly  recalls  the  immature  state  of  the  Corinthian  Church, 
is  certainly  no  mark  of  a  later  time. 

§  29.    THE  CRITICISM  OP  THE  PASTOEAL  EPISTLES. 

1.  The  scientific  criticism  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  begins 
with  Schleiermacher  (Ueber  den  sogen.ersten  Brief  des  Paulus 
an  Tim.,  Berlin,  1807),  who  endeavoured  to  prove  that  the 
first  Epistle  to  Timothy  was  a  compilation  from  the  two 
other  Pastoral  ones.  But  the  passages,  e.g.  I  Tim.  i.  20 
(comp.  §  27,  1,  note  1),  in  which  one  of  the  other  epistles 
is  said  to  be  presupposed  and  unskilfully  imitated,  as  also 
the  alleged  want  of  aim  and  connection,  are  capable  of  ex- 
planation by  a  somewhat  more  careful  exegesis;  and  the 
epistle  is  not  more  closely  allied  to  the  other  two  than  these 
are  to  one  another.  Therefore,  although  Schleiermacher  still 
finds  followers,  it  was  soon  seen  that  the  other  two  Pastoral 
Epistles  must  stand  and  fall  with  the  first  to  Timothy; 
Schleiermacher  himself  pointed  out  so  many  difficulties  that 
applied  with  equal  force  to  all  three,  that  since  Eichhorn  and 
de  Wette  in  their  Introductions  (1812,  21)  declared  all  three 
to  be  spurious,  the  strife  has  always  been  concentrated  on 
the  Pastoral  Epistles  generally.1  The  dispute  either  turned 

1  In  favour  of  Schleiermacher  are  Liicke  (Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1834,  4), 
Neander,  Bleek,  Usteri  (in  his  Paul.  Lehrbegr.),  and  in  the  main  Credner 
also.  Comp.  also  Eudow,  De  Argum.  Hist,  quibus  Epist.  Pastor,  origo  Paul, 
impugnata  est,  Gott.,  1853.  Eitschl  and  Krauss  have  also  incidentally 
declared  themselves  favourable  to  his  view.  H.  Planck  (Bern,  uber  den  1. 
paul.  Brief  an  Tim.,  Gott.,  1808),  Beckhaus  (Specimen  Obscrv.,  etc.,  1810), 
and  Wegscheider  (der  erste  Brief  des  Paulus  an  den  Tim.,  G5tt.,  1810)  at 
once  came  forward  against  him.  Comp.  also  Curtius,  De  Tempore  quo 
prior  Pi.  ad  Tim.  Epist.  exar.  sit,  Berlin,  1828.  Credner,  Schott,  Neu- 
decker,  Mayerhoff  (in  his  Colosserbrief,  1838),  Ewald,  Meyer,  and  Man- 
gold very  soon  attached  themselves  to  the  criticism  of  Eichhorn  and  de 


410   CRITICISM   OP   SCHLEIERMACHER   AND   EICHHORN. 

on  the  question  as  to  whether  the  epistles  were  written  by  the 
Apostle  himself  or  by  one  of  his  disciples  at  his  direction, 
probably,  as  Schott  supposed,  by  Luke ;  or  else  the  negative 
position  that  they  could  not  have  proceeded  from  Paul  was 
taken  up.  The  most  prominent  argument  always  was  that 
they  could  not  be  inserted  in  the  life  of  Paul  with  which  we 
are  familiar;  and  that  they  were  directed  against  errorista 
and  relations  of  the  Church  unknown  to  the  genuine  Pauline 
epistles.  All  this  is  freely  conceded,  but  it  only  proves  that 
they  belong  to  an  epoch  of  his  life  subsequent  to  his  release 
from  the  first  Roman  captivity,  of  which  we  have  no  other 
historical  testimony  or  early  record.  It  is  likewise  conceded 
that  they  contain  much  that  is  peculiar  in  their  doctrinal 
method  as  well  as  in  verbal  expression,  which  gives  a  general 
impression  of  strangeness  to  one  who  comes  to  them  from 
the  older  epistles.  Much  of  this  however  is  sufficiently  ex- 
plained by  the  peculiar  contents  of  the  epistles,  and  from 
the  entirely  new  phenomena  which  they  oppose.  But  to 
conclude  at  once  that  they  are  spurious,  from  that  which 
has  not  and  perhaps  never  can  be  explained,  is  forbidden 
by  the  growing  insight  into  the  wealth  and  mobility  of  the 
Pauline  intellect,  which  must  not  be  fettered  in  mode  of 
teaching  or  expression  by  a  rule  taken  from  a  number  of 
older  epistles  arbitrarily  selected.  Above  all,  it  is  an  estab- 
lished fact  that  the  essential,  fundamental  features  of  the 
Pauline  doctrine  of  salvation  are  even  in  their  specific  ex- 
pression reproduced  in  our  epistles  with  a  clearness  such  as 
we  do  not  find  in  any  Pauline  disciple  excepting  perhaps 
Luke  or  the  Roman  Clement.  The  extent  to  which  the 
expression  fully  agrees  with  that  of  Paul  is  shown  by  the 

Wette ;  while  Hug,  Bertholdt,  Guericke,  the  commentaries  of  Heyden- 
reich  (1826),  Mack  (1836),  and  Leo  (1837),  defended  all  three  epistles. 
Com  p.  also  £5hl,  ilber  die  Zeit.  der  Abfaisung  u.  den  paul.  Character  der 
Briefe  an  Tim.  «.  Tit.,  Berl.,  1829,  and  Kling  in  his  appendix  to  Flatt's 
lectures,  Tub.,  1831. 


CRITICISM   OF   THE   PASTORAL   EPISTLES.  411 

fact  that  criticism  can  only  explain  this  agreement  on  the 
hypothesis  of  an  intentional  imitation  of  Pauline  passages ; 
which  remains  a  petitio  principii  so  long  as  it  is  possible  to 
come  to  an  adequate  understanding  of  the  epistles  without  it. 
2.  Hence  the  only  point  in  question  is,  whether  the  spu- 
riousness  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  can  be  proved  on  positive 
grounds.  In  the  first  place  we  must  adhere  to  the  position 
that  the  external  attestation  of  the  epistles  is  quite  on  a 
par  with  that  of  the  other  Paulines  (§  16,  1).  They  must 
therefore  betray  the  fact  that  they  are  pseudonymous  pro- 
ductions by  unmistakeable  internal  signs ;  above  all,  the 
tendency  to  give  weight  to  their  directions  and  teaching  by 
an  apostolic  authority  must  be  suspiciously  prominent.  It 
has  been  made  a  ground  of  objection  that  Paul,  though 
speaking  to  his  intimate  disciples,  expressly  designates  him- 
self an  apostle;  but  this  may  easily  be  explained  from  the 
circumstance  that  he  is  not  writing  a  word  of  fatherly  love 
to  his  spiritual  children,  but  letters  containing  directions 
regarding  matters  of  business  and  admonitions  relating  to 
office.1  If  the  factitious  and  inconsistent  character  of  the 
situation  in  all  three  epistles  be  regarded  as  evidence  of  fiction 

1  But  the  passages  in  which  Paul  emphasizes  the  fact  that  he  is  en- 
trusted with  the  free  or  universal  gospel  (1  Tim.  i.  11,  ii.  7)  are  just  as 
clearly  explained  from  the  connection  as  the  passages  2  Tim.  i.  11 ;  Tit. 
i.  3,  where  he  makes  lu's  personal  calling  a  guarantee  of  the  manifestation 
of  salvation.  The  passage  1  Tim.  i.  12-16,  where  he  draws  the  sum  of 
saving  truth  from  his  own  life-experience,  no  more  contains  an  enhanced 
humility  on  his  part  than  2  Tim.  iii.  10,  11,  where  he  reminds  the  dis- 
ciple of  the  example  of  his  Christian  life  that  had  formerly  influenced 
him  to  become  a  Christian  himself,  contains  exaggerated  self-praise,  as 
appears  in  hoth  cases  from  the  undoubted  evidence  of  the  Corinthian 
Epistles.  But  while  the  reason  why  Paul  in  the  latter  passage  mentions 
his  experiences  in  the  home  of  Timothy  is  quite  easily  explained  on  the 
assumption  of  the  genuineness,  the  opposite  assumption  first  gives  rise 
to  the  difficulty  of  explaining  why  the  pseudonymous  writer,  to  whom 
the  Apostle's  whole  life  lay  open,  should  have  chosen  these  very  events. 
Finally,  to  find  in  2  Tim.  iv.  6  ft.  a  studied  self-preparation  for  martyr* 
dom,  is  a  mere  matter  of  opinion. 


412  ALLEGED  TRACES  OF  PSEUDONYMITY. 

(comp.  especially  Holtzmann  in  his  Introduction),  it  is  im- 
possible to  conceive  a,  priori  why  the  pseudonymous  author 
who  confessedly  did  not  attach  himself  to  the  situations  and 
relations  of  Paul's  life  with  which  we  are  familiar,  did  not 
choose  a  more  simple  and  less  contradictory  situation.  But 
we  have  already  shown  that  the  epistles  can  be  explained 
with  perfect  clearness  from  the  situations  they  presuppose 
(§  27,  1,  3,  5).  It  is  a  mere  inconsistency  to  object  at  one 
time  that  the  directions  of  our  epistles  put  the  apostolic 
disciples  too  much  on  a  level  with  school-boys  and  demand 
too  little  from  the  officers  of  the  Church,  and  then  to  main- 
tain that  the  former  were  placed  there  as  the  ideal  of  the 
future  bishop,  and  the  latter  as  a  clergy  'with  hierarchical 
claims.  The  fiction  would  undoubtedly  betray  itself  as  such 
if  the  pseudonymous  writer  had  represented  the  errors  of 
his  time  as  having  been  foretold  by  the  Apostle ;  and  then 
falling  out  of  his  character  had  combated  them  as  being 
present.  As  a  matter  of  fact  however,  the  doctrinal  errors 
of  our  epistles  appear  throughout  as  present ;  while  nothing 
is  in  truth  to  be  seen  of  the  alleged  mixture  of  present  and 
future.2  On  the  other  hand  we  see  in  this  reproach  only 
a  symptom  of  a  prevailing  peculiarity  of  the  criticism  that 
attaches  itself  to  Schleiermacher  and  de  Wette,  and  which 
still  plays  an  important  part  especially  in  the  Pastoral 
Epistles.  The  supposed  proof  of  spuriousness  rests  now  on 
a  misapprehension  of  the  right  connection,  again  on  fancied 


•  Erroneous  doctrine  of  a  dualist,  ascetio  nature,  is  foretold  only  in 
1  Tim.  i  v.  1-8,  and  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  doctrinal  errors 
combated.  On  the  contrary  2  Tim.  iii.  1-6  predicts  only  a  moral  cor- 
ruption concealing  itself  under  the  cloke  of  piety,  which  begets  a  partiality 
for  doctrines  that  are  not  inimical  to  it  (iv.  3).  Compare  §  28,  1,  note  3. 
But  the  former  could  not  have  taken  place  if  ascetio  inclinations  had  not 
already  appeared  (not  by  any  means,  however,  in  the  present  doctrinal 
errors),  to  which  it  might  at  a  future  time  be  prejudicial  (1  Tim.  iv.  8) ; 
and  the  latter  only  takes  place  because  a  similar  immoral  pretence  of 
piety  already  characterizes  the  present  doctrinal  errors  (2  Tim.  iii.  6  f .). 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  413 

distortion  of  thought  or  inappropriateness  of  expression ;  or 
finally  on  the  imagined  discovery  of  certain  difficulties  with 
regard  to  the  historical  apprehension.  But  it  is  overlooked 
that  there  is  no  Pauline  epistle  which,  if  approached  with 
the  same  prejudice  against  its  genuineness,  does  not  afford 
abundant  occasion  for  the  very  same  criticism,  and  present 
similar  difficulties  that  can  only  be  solved  with  a  compara- 
tive degree  of  certainty.  On  the  other  hand  illogical  writing, 
want  of  arrangement,  distorted  thoughts  and  inappropriate 
expressions  or  strange  inconsistencies,  are  not  necessarily 
marks  of  a  pseudonymous  author ;  on  the  contrary,  exegesis 
will  always  adhere  to  the  task  of  explaining  the  epistle  on 
the  presupposition  that  the  pseudonymous  writer  has  carried 
out  the  part  he  had  once  assumed,  conformably  to  the  object 
he  has  in  view. 

3.  With  regard  to  the  Pastoral  Epistles  also,  it  was  Baur 
(Die  sogen.  Pastor albriefe.,  Stuttg.  u.  Tub.,  1835)  who  first 
set  the  true  limits  to  criticism.  Such  criticism  cannot  be 
brought  to  a  conclusion  so  long  as  it  is  exclusively  occupied 
with  the  consideration  of  individual  reasons  for  doubting  the 
genuineness ;  it  is  only  if  the  origin  of  the  epistles  can  be 
explained  by  the  relations  and  tendencies  of  a  definite  later 
time  visible  in  them,  that  we  gain  an  historical  apprehension 
of  their  nature.  Banr  thought  he  had  attained  this  by 
making  the  epistles  originate  in  the  second  century  with 
the  object  of  combating  the  Gnostic  heresy  in  the  Apostle's 
name,  and  of  protecting  the  Church  against  its  intrusion  by 
a  more  rigid  hierarchical  organization.  Although  the  firsi 
positions  of  Baur  have  been  already  modified  by  pupils  like 
Schwegler,  Hilgenfeld  and  Volkmar,  while  the  attempt 
originally  made  by  Baur  to  prove  in  them  the  union- 
tendency  attributed  by  him  to  the  second  century  has  been 
universally  abandoned,  yet  his  fundamental  conception  has 
been  very  widely  adopted  by  Schenkel,  Pfleiderer,  Hausrath, 
Renan,  and  even  by  Immer,  Beyschlag,  Weizsacker  and 


414  MODERN   CRITICISM  OF  THE   EPISTLES. 

others.  Ewald  and  Mangold  (die  Irrlehrer  der  Pastoral- 
briefe.,  Marburg,  1856)  have  indeed  expressly  rejected 
Baur's  view,  adhering  to  that  of  the  older  criticism  accord- 
ing to  which  the  epistle  still  belongs  to  the  first  century. 
On  the  other  hand  Bahnsen  has  endeavoured  on  the  basis 
of  his  hypothesis  to  give  a  detailed  explanation  of  the 
second  Epistle  to  Timothy  in  particular  (die  sogen.  Pastoral- 
briefe,  Leipzig,  1876);  while  Holtzmann  (die  Pastoralbriefe, 
Leipzig,  1880,  compare  also  his  Introduction)  has  attempted 
to  review  the  sum  of  this  criticism  and  by  putting  together 
its  positive  results  to  bring  it  to  a  settlement.  But  this 
very  attempt  has  shown  how  far  criticism  still  is  from 
arriving  at  a  definite  historical  apprehension  of  our  epistles 
in  such  a  way.  It  has  been  obliged  to  concede  that  the  con- 
crete features  of  any  Gnostic  system  of  the  second  century 
with  which  we  are  familiar,  do  not  appear  in  the  doctrinal 
errors  here  combated.1  So  too  it  has  been  proved,  after  ex- 
haustive refutation  of  Baur's  first  attempts,  that  the  Church- 
government  presupposed  or  aimed  at  in  our  epistles,  shows 
nothing  yet  of  the  changed  form  characteristic  of  the  second 
century;  while  it  is  not  only  impossible,  as  already  shown, 
actually  to  prove  its  alleged  hierarchical  tendencies,  but  they 
are  precluded  by  features  of  a  directly  contrary  nature. 
Hence  criticism  has  by  no  means  arrived  at  a  definite  judg- 
ment as  yet  respecting  the  time  of  the  epistles.  While 
Beyschlag  holds  to  the  time  of  Trajan,  Hausrath  is  in  favour 
of  Hadrian's  time  ;  Pfleiderer  divides  the  epistles  between 

1  If  it  be  asserted  that  the  admission  of  such  features  is  intentionally 
avoided  because  it  would  have  contradicted  the  fiction  that  Paul  had 
already  combated  them,  this  implies  a  refinement  of  falsification  that  is 
quite  foreign  to  the  naivete  of  pseudonymous  authorship.  And  if  be  said 
that  it  appeared  safer  and  at  least  more  convenient  to  dismiss  the 
Gnostic  speculations  a  liminc,  than  to  cuter  into  a  more  minute  refuta- 
tion of  them,  this  only  lifts  them  once  more  out  of  the  historical  circle 
in  which  they  are  said  to  have  originated;  since  the  Church  of  the  second 
century  never  failed  in  confidence  of  power  to  overcome  Gnosis  with 
spiritual  weapons. 


THE  PASTOEAL  EPISTLES.  415 

Trajan  and  Hadrian,  while  Holtzmann  again  goes  beyond 
the  time  of  the  latter;  on  the  other  hand  Hilgenfeld  and 
Schenkel  agree  with  Banr  in  putting  the  composition  of 
the  epistles  about  150,  while  Volkmar  leaves  the  time  open 
till  170.8 

4.  Hence  arises  the  question,  whether,  even  apart  from 
the  enquiry  how  far  success  has  been  or  can  be  achieved  in 
definitely  fixing  the  time  of  the  epistles  and  the  relations 
they  presuppose,  their  origin  can  be  explained  by  the  aim 
respecting  which  later  criticism  assuming  their  spuriousness, 
is  essentially  agreed.  But  the  second  Epistle  to  Timothy, 
which  is  generally  regarded  as  the  earliest,  and  in  which 
therefore  the  aim  of  the  composition  must  appear  most 
obviously,  is  for  the  most  part  taken  up  with  admonitions 
to  Christian  courage  under  suffering,  and  to  faithful  fulfil- 
ment of  the  Christian  calling ;  which  have  nothing  to  do  with 
this  aim  and  cannot  even  form  a  secondary  one,  since  they 
nowhere  recur  in  this  form  in  the  other  epistles.  Undoubt- 
edly prevailing  doctrinal  errors  are  here  combated;  but 
Timothy  is  only  admonished  in  the  most  earnest  way  to  take 
no  part  in  them,  while  we  meet  with  no  direction  as  to 
Church-government  that  might  afford  protection  against 
them  or  supply  means  of  resisting  them,  so  that  here  in  any 

3  Nor  do  complete  clearness  and  unanimity  by  any  means  prevail  re- 
specting the  question  whether  the  three  epistles  proceed  from  the  same 
time  and  from  the  same  author,  as  well  as  respecting  the  order  in  which 
they  were  written.  If  they  are  from  the  same  hand,  the  objections  to 
their  Pauline  authorship  that  have  been  found  in  the  relation  they  bear 
to  one  another,  are  not  removed.  The  fact  that  1  Tim.  is  generally 
supposed  to  have  been  written  last,  is  only  a  result  of  the  criticism  of 
Schleiermacher ;  of  which  the  chief  causes  at  least  fall  away  entirely  it 
all  three  epistles  be  ascribed  to  the  same  author.  The  reason  why 
Mangold  puts  the  Epistle  to  Titus  first,  rests  only  on  his  peculiar  con- 
ception of  the  opponents  there  combated ;  a  conception  not  adopted  by 
recent  critics  (§  28,  1,  note  1)  ;  but  the  reason  why  2  Tim.  is  generally 
put  first,  also  rests  only  on  the  feeling  that  it  contains  most  Pauline 
characteristics  ;  which,  however,  is  entirely  without  significance  on  the 
supposition  of  its  pseudonymous  character. 


416       POSITIVE   RESULTS  OF  MODERN   CRITICISM. 

case  the  former  alleged  aim  does  not  appear.  "We  certainly 
find  in  Titus  an  endeavour,  by  means  of  Church-organiza- 
tion and  the  union  of  the  work  of  teaching  with  office  in  the 
Church,  to  ensure  purity  of  doctrine ;  but  the  organization 
there  aimed  at  is  the  old  presbyterian  organization  and  no 
ecclesiastical  innovation.  The  epistle  however  is  mainly 
taken  up  with  directions  for  the  instruction  of  the  most 
diverse  classes  of  Church-members  in  the  Christian  life; 
and  these  again  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  former  alleged 
tendency.  Only  in  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy  do  we  find 
doctrinal  errors  and  Church-organization  equally  discussed  ; 
but  the  author's  wish  that  bishops  should  apply  themselves 
to  teaching  (iii.  2,  v.  16),  hence  likewise  to  the  combination 
of  these  two  points  characteristic  of  such  tendency,  appears 
only  indirectly.  No  directions  are  given  to  the  bishops 
to  combat  these  errors ;  but  only  to  Timothy.  As  in 
the  Epistle  to  Titus,  the  question  turns  only  on  the 
requisite  qualifications  for  their  office,  that  have  nothing 
to  do  with  such  a  problem;  all  that  is  said  of  discipline 
respecting  them,  has  reference  to  moral  defects  and  not 
doctrinal  errors.  Then  follow  analogous  precepts  for  the 
office  of  deacon  and  the  institution  of  widows,  which  in  the 
nature  of  the  thing  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  doctrinal 
question,  directions  respecting  Church-prayer  and  the  main- 
tenance of  widows,  admonitions  to  slaves  and  to  the  rich, 
that  are  as  remote  as  possible  from  such  tendency ;  while 
oven  the  polemic  against  doctrinal  errors  is  combined  with 
warnings  against  unfruitful  asceticism  and  the  love  of  money 
that  is  destruction  to  the  soul ;  which  certainly  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  alleged  tendency  of  the  epistles.  Hence  it 
must  be  conceded  that  the  view  of  a  Church  organizer  whose 
object  it  is  by  developing  and  strengthening  the  episcopal 
office  of  teacher  and  pastor  to  protect  the  doctrine  that  had 
been  handed  down  against  the  disorder  of  the  Churches  in- 
fected by  Gnostic  errors,  explains  our  epistles  only  in  a  very 


THE   PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  417 

small  degree,  but  that  the  question  why  three  such  epistles 
were  composed  with  this  object,  and  why  an  apostolic  name 
was  borrowed  for  them  at  a  time  when,  as  the  history  of  the 
Canon  teaches,  apostolic  epistles  were  not  yet  by  any  means 
the  specific  normal  authority,  still  remains  entirely  un- 
answered. 

5.  The  personal  notices  scattered  throughout  our  epistles 
and  the  peculiarity  of  the  relations  there  presupposed,  pre- 
sented special  difficulty  against  the  hypothesis  of  spurious- 
ness.  Even  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy  contains  in  i.  20 
an  allusion  to  two  men  delivered  unto  Satan ;  and  in  v.  23 
a  dietary  prescription  for  Timothy,  of  which  it  would  be 
hard  to  say  how  the  pseudonymous  writer  came  to  mention 
them.  The  Epistle  to  Titus  transfers  the  Apostle  with  his 
ministry  to  Crete,  to  which  place  nothing  in  the  Pauline 
epistles  with  which  we  are  familiar  points ;  and  in  iii.  12-14 
brings  in  a  number  of  personal  notices  that  have  no  con- 
nection whatever  with  its  aim,  and  for  which  the  other 
Paulines  do  not  offer  the  smallest  point  of  attachment.  In 
this  respect  however,  the  second  Epistle  to  Timothy 
presents  most  difficulties.  It  may  of  course  be  said  that  the 
names  of  Timothy's  mother  and  grandmother  (i.  5)  or  the 
experiences  of  the  Apostle  in  his  imprisonment  (iv.  14-17) 
are  borrowed  from  tradition  for  the  purpose  of  giving  life 
and  colour  to  the  composition  ;  but  any  such  explanation  is 
invalidated  by  the  notices  contained  in  i.  15-18  which  in  their 
briefness  of  allusion  are  so  hard  to  understand.  So  too  it 
may  be  said  that  in  the  numerous  personal  notices  adduced 
(iv.  10-15,  19-21),  the  author  had  in  his  mind  isolated 
names  taken  from  the  earlier  epistles,  or  relations  and  situa- 
tions known  from  the  Acts,  though  he  must  have  been  very 
shortsighted  not  to  see  the  contradictions  in  which  the  use 
of  them  would  involve  him ;  but  side  by  side  with  familiar 
names  we  find  others  that  are  quite  unknown,  side  by  side 
with  combinations  that  are  natural  to  say  the  least,  others 

?  ¥ 


418         THEIB  ALLEGED  TENDENCY   UNTENABLE. 

that  are  quite  remote  and  purposeless,  such  as  the  cloak  and 
books  said  to  have  been  left  by  Paul  with  Carpus  at  Troas 
which  remain  entirely  inexplicable.  Hence  it  is  that  the 
hypothesis  of  spuriousness  has  so  frequently  been  associated 
with  the  opinion  that  some  genuine  Pauline  remains  lie  at 
the  foundation  of  the  epistles.1  But  it  is  hardly  possible  to 
form  any  conceivable  notion  of  the  manner  and  object  of 
such  Pauline  notes;  and  the  use  of  them  in  letters  with 
whose  aim  they  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  could  only  be 
intended  to  give  the  latter  the  appearance  of  genuine 
Pauline  letters;  a  theory  on  which  they  lose  the  character  of 
free  pseudonymous  productions  and  become  actual  refined 
forgeries,  which  all  interpolations  of  genuine  epistles  in  the 
interest  of  a  tendency  must  a  priori  be  regarded. 

6.  The  first  who  came  forward  against  the  criticism  of 
Baur  were  Michael  Baumgarten  (die  Echtheit  der  Pastoral- 
briefe,  Berlin,  1837),  Bottger  (Beitr,  zur  hist.-Ttrit.  Einl.t 
Gott.,  1837,  38),  and  Wieseler;  while  in  recent  times  the 
epistles  have  been  defended  particularly  by  Thiersch,  Lange, 
Delitzsch  (Zeitschr.  fwr  luth.  Theol.  t*.  Kirche,  1851),  Otto 
(die  geschichtlichen  Verhdltnisse  der  Pastor  albriefe,  Leipzig, 
1860),  Ginella  (De  Authentia  Epist.  S.  Pauli  Pastor.,  Breslau, 
1865),  Laurent  (in  his  NTl.Studien,  1866),  Stirm  (Jahrb.fiir 


i  Credner  in  his  Introduction  (1836)  already  held  that  the  second 
Epistle  to  Timothy  owed  its  origin  to  the  two  genuine  Pauline  epistles, 
by  means  of  combination  and  interpolation;  while  Ewald,  Weisse,  Hitzig 
and  Krenkel  saw  in  it  and  the  Epistle  to  Titus  a  number  of  shorter 
writings  containing  commissions,  news,  etc.,  which  they  regarded  as  the 
authentic  nucleus  of  our  epistles.  Hausrath,  Pfleiderer,  Immer  and 
others  found  such  a  nucleus  in  second  Timothy;  and  finally  Lemma 
(dot  echte  Ermahnungichreiben  del  Ap.  Paulut  an  Tim.,  Breslau,  1882) 
has  declared  the  whole  epistle,  with  the  exception  of  ii.  11-iv.  6,  to  be 
genuine.  Even  Grau  regards  the  epistle  as  having  been  first  com- 
posed after  the  death  of  the  Apostle  by  Tim.  and  Tit.  themselves  with 
the  help  of  notes  and  personal  recollections ;  while  Plitt  (die  Pastoral- 
briefe,  Berlin,  1872)  tries  to  make  out  that  all  three  are  genuine  Pauline 
epistles  worked  over. 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  419 

deutsche  Theol.,  1872,  76),  Herzog  (ilber  die  Abfassungszeit  der 
Pastoralbriefe,  1872),  and  Kolling  (der  erste  Brief  an  Timo- 
theus,  Berlin,  1882) ;  as  also  in  the  commentaries  of  Matthies, 
Wiesinger,  Huther,  Oosterzee,  Hofmann,  and  Beck.  In  his 
Introduction  Beuss  had  persistently  defended  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  epistles ;  but  in  the  fifth  edition  (1874)  he  enter- 
tained many  doubts ;  and  in  his  epitr.  Paul.  (1878)  he  still 
adhered  only  to  the  second  Epistle  to  Timothy.  The  strength 
of  the  defence  was  weakened  beforehand  by  the  fact  that  one 
class  of  defenders  using  all  conceivable  harmonistic  arts, 
endeavoured  to  bring  the  epistles  into  the  life  of  the  Apostle 
with  which  we  are  familiar ;  whereas  others  admitted  that 
they  could  only  be  supported  if  they  belonged  to  a  time 
subsequent  to  the  Apostle's  release  from  his  Roman  captivity. 
Moreover,  neither  the  doctrinal  errors  combated  in  our 
epistles  nor  the  relations  of  the  Churches  which  they  pre- 
suppose were  investigated  with  sufficient  thoroughness  to 
throw  any  real  light  on  the  points  where  the  attack  on  them 
always  recommenced.  Finally,  even  in  pointing  out  in  the 
epistles  what  was  Pauline  in  doctrine  and  expression,  there 
was  much  neglect  in  showing  and  explaining  what  was  really 
peculiar  in  them.  Thus  it  came  about  that  notwithstanding 
all  zeal  in  defending  the  epistles,  the  opinion  that  their 
genuineness  could  scarcely  be  supported  on  scientific  grounds 
found  ever-increasing  acceptance. 

7.  Since  the  Apostle's  release  from  the  Roman  captivity 
cannot  be  proved  by  any  historical  evidence  apart  from  these 
epistles  if  they  are  genuine  (§  26,  7) ;  and  since  their 
genuineness  can  only  be  proved  on  the  assumption  that  this 
release  did  take  place,  it  must  be  conceded  that  we  have 
here  a  circular  proof  that  does  not  admit  of  a  definitive 
scientific  decision.  It  must  further  be  conceded  that  the 
doctrinal  errors  against  which  our  epistles  are  directed 
cannot  be  historically  indicated,  that  the  time  in  which  the 
firmer  Church  organization  here  aimed  at,  and  in  particular 


420  APOLOGETIC  OF  TEE  tfPISTLES. 

the  combination  of  teaching  with  office  in  the  Church,  was 
carried  into  effect,  cannot  be  historically  fixed ;  so  that  it  is 
impossible  to  carry  out  the  proof  that  our  epistles  must 
belong  to  the  second  half  of  the  years  60-70.  Finally  it 
must  be  admitted  that  the  question  as  to  whether  the  devia- 
tions in  doctrine  and  expression  actually  existing  between 
these  and  the  other  Pauline  epistles  can  be  explained  from 
the  relations  of  time  and  by  a  change  of  form  brought  about 
by  the  Apostle  himself,  is  incapable  of  definite  scientific 
proof.  But  it  must  likewise  be  affirmed  that  our  epistles  are 
fully  explained  by  the  relations  presupposed  in  them ;  and 
that  the  alleged  difficulties  may  be  removed  by  an  unpreju- 
diced exegesis ;  while  on  the  other  hand  the  hypothesis  of 
spuriousness  has  not  yet  explained  the  state  of  things  exist- 
ing at  that  time,  and  involves  incomparably  greater  difficulties 
than  the  view  that  they  are,  what  they  profess  to  be,  epistles 
of  Paul,  proceeding  from  the  last  period  of  his  life  otherwise 
unknown  to  us.  Compare  in  Meyer's  Commentary,  the  fifth 
edition  of  the  krit.-exeg.  Ilandbuch  on  the  Epistles  of  Timothy 
and  Titus,  revised  by  B.  Weiss,  Gott.,  1885. 


[END  or  VOL.  i.] 


W4 
V.I 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Scries  9482 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     001  004  688     6 


